Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode)

Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:EPISODE. Hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Article also got tagged with a "copyvio" tag. Author removed to the tag and rewrote it, but the rewrite, IMO, is poor. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for basically the same reason.

Don't Try This At Home (Ghost Whisperer episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Underneath (Ghost Whisperer episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - added by User:Sgeureka after Lankiveil's !vote

• "Matt, Jim's friend, return from Iraq after his unit dies. His memory loss, Melinda help him to do clarity thank to ghosts of privates". Most informative! Neither article, to quote from WP:NOT, "offer(s) detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance". Therefore, I suggest that we Delete All. Lankiveil (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete all (I have added The Underneath (Ghost Whisperer episode) to the nomination because it has the same problem). The articles don't demonstrate any notability, and I guess there isn't any to begin with. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all three I would like to see the "significant coverage in reliable sources" test applied to all TV episode articles. There are some television episodes that are remembered by everyone-- Master of Your Domain, Who Shot J.R., Vitametavegamin, The Trouble With Tribbles --- but the vast majority of TV episodes are not worthy of an encylopedia article. Because there is no secondary coverage, it's ALL original research. The only positive point that can be made about a TV episode article is that it gets someone off the couch and lets them hone their writing skills... but these things should be taken down after a month. Somehow, this is even worse than o.r., taken straight from imdb.com or the show's website, which is wrong on even more levels. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above sentiment. This fails to assert even the potential for independent notability and should therefore be removed per WP:NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2007
• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All Three — Not notable. I also agree with Mandsford's WP:OR argument, and offer thanks for it. --Jack Merridew 09:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All nothing notable about these episodes. Ridernyc (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all as it is a notable show and episodes seen by millions of viewers are inherently notable and verifiable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  see WP:NOTINHERITED --Jack Merridew 07:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all three, they are not worthy entries in an encyclopedia. Greswik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, per WP:EPISODE. Why does it seem that certain people who decide to enforce WP:EPISODE stop reading before they get to the section "Dealing with problem articles"? The guideline says specifically to "consider merging or redirecting" and to "avoid listing episodes for AfD", yet I see no attempts by the nominator or anyone else to merge or redirect in the articles' histories, and the discussion pages are nonexistent. By the way, there are secondary reliable sources, e.g. The Toronto Star, though the coverage might not be enough to establish notability for separate articles. Consider my recommendation changed to a "keep" if more significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. DHowell (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

because if you redirect without going through AFD you end up at ARBCOM. Ridernyc (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.