Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Cousins Dangereux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 — Caknuck 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Les Cousins Dangereux

Les Cousins Dangereux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:N. A fictional film that's only a joke in handful of episodes and never in a major way. SeizureDog 05:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment This Afd nomination is incomplete - the article has no Afd tag and the creator has not been notified. Please relist. Skomorokh incite 11:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Damnit, I knew that would happen to one of these. Tagged and relisted. (Not that it matters)--SeizureDog 12:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, creator hasn't made an edit since March 19, 2006, no point in notifying.--SeizureDog 12:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Keb25 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep again this is a major plot device in the show that relates to the relationship between George Michael and Maybe. You have put up a lot of these pages that describe major plot points in very popular TV shows. The shows are very notable and the pages describe major plot devices in the show and are very useful. I think it is much better to have seperate articles for them then to have lengthy sections within each episode description or within the show description page.Shniken1 12:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We aren't supposed to have articles on "plot points" because they aren't notable outside of the show itself. Notability is not inherited.--SeizureDog 12:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • They are notable outside the show thats my point, they are all major enough plot points that they as notable outside the show as the show itself. Take Back to the Future as an example, it has multiple pages about the movies characters, as does almost all TV shows and movies as well as pages about the time machine and the setting of the movies. This are undisputedly notable outside the movies (the deloren time machine is as notable as the movies themselves). My argument is that this movie with the show as well as Cleaver (The Sopranos) , The Cornballer and Medellín (Entourage) are all imporant and notable plot devices.Shniken1 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources that are substantively about the fictional film. This should be covered in the episode articles in which it appears, which it is. There is never going to be enough to warrant a separate article. Otto4711 14:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This film is used throughout a number of episodes and it needs a seperate page to show the significance of the film to the character development of Maybe and George Michael and their relationshipShniken1 14:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • First, please learn to indent your coments properly to help smooth the flow of the discussion. Secondly, nonsense. There are articles on every episode in which this faux film appears and articles on each of the characters. Per WP:FICT to sustain a separate article you must prove that there are reliable secondary sources. There are not and the film is covered adequately in other articles about the series, the episodes and the characters. Otto4711 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Secondary sources are only needed for non-notable articles, my point is this is notable. Most of the episode articles are very lengthy and do not adequately address the importance of this film to the entire series, only to the individual episodes. This article summarises this film in the context of the show very nicely and should remain. As a comprise would a new article on these running plot elements be better? I don't think so but I'm putting it out there --Shniken1 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Secondary sources are only needed for non-notable articles. This is a non-sequitur. All Wikipedia articles must be on notable subjects. Articles on non-notable subjects should be deleted. As you believe that this subject is notable, please provide independent reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of the fictional film, as required under notability guidelines. Otto4711 15:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I can't see this as notable. No WP:V or WP:RS. In-universe details which don't meet WP:FICT. Pigman 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as wholly non-notable and unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pd THOR (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Aww buggerit. It's been a long time since I've made that mistake. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The question of notability in current or near-current pop culture pages seems very blurry. There seems to be a consensus that every episode and every character of every television show merits its own page, which suggests a broad definition of "notable." No one's questioning that the episode this theme comes from, My Mother, the Car deserves its own page, but the only sources for it are a fansite, the Fox website, and WikiQuote -- which would seem to flunk the notability guidelines test that Otto4711 cites above. What is the argument this individual episode is notable, but that what Shniken1 characterizes as a major plot device is not? Llajwa 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Otto4711's argument (below) makes sense - I retract mine. Llajwa 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • See my comments in the AFD for The Cornballer above. Your argument here is known as WP:WAX or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whether the individual episode is notable and/or meets the guidelines set out at WP:EPISODE has no bearing on whether this article should exist. Each article needs to meet policies and guidelines on its own regardless of the status of any other article. I disagree that there is consensus that every episode warrants an article and WP:FICT clearly shows that there is no consensus that every character does. Otto4711 22:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love the show, but this plays such a minor role that it can easily be incorporated into the main article (in discussion of running jokes) or into George Michael's or Maeby's individual articles. There's such a dearth of information on it (that it's French, that there was a remake, and ten seconds of dialogue) that there's little hope for this ever expanding into real information. Dylan 22:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The only reason there's not much to add to the page lately is because the show was canceled a few years ago. So now the people pushing for Delete are spinning both sides: on one hand, they are claiming that it's ridiculous how every little bit of every new show seems to deserve a page and how the lines are getting blurry, and on the other hand they are claiming it should be deleted because the show is over and thus there's no new information. That's just ridiculous. The movie was one of the most important plot devices in a rather popular TV show and explains a major part of the interaction between two featured characters. There's too much information about it to be rolled up into an existing article. Thus, I vote Keep. Gabefarkas 01:07, 22 October 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.