Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 28
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. --Coredesat 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eleventyseven
- – (View AfD)
Article has been speedy deleted 5 times under CSD A7/no assertion of notability. Couldn't find any WP:RS in Google results to indicate that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Leuko 04:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing in Google to indicate this band could pass WP:MUSIC. Nothing in Google even approaching a reliable source for its associated charity. With five A7 speedies already under its belt, I'd also suggest considering salting lest this try for five G4 speedies next. Serpent's Choice 09:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: They never used to be notable enough for inclusion, and they aren't now. That charity sounds very suspect, too. J Milburn 10:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Since this has been created and deleted 5 times, and since this is no more notable than its predecessors, definitely delete. Virtual Cowboy 12:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Unable to find anything in the article or elsewhere that meets the WP:BAND guideline. Gimmetrow 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: This band has been deleted before under CSD A7, but most of the times the real reason for deletion was plagiarized content. They are a rising band with a very popular debut album. I'm planning on reworking the article soon so please don't delete it. freeradster (talk | contribs) 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete but do not salt -- notability can change quickly in the field of music, and we don't want to hinder creation of an article should the band become notable. JulesH 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete nomination says it all Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 18:15, 1 May 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.
- 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 No consensus. Walton Need some help? 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of groups referred to as cults
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
This is NOT a discussion page. Make your comment and leave other editors' comments alone. If you want to engage in a discussion, please do so at the discussion page.
- According to WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, this is a discussion page, and responses to other editors are ok. The response instructions are:
If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple bullets).
- It appears to me that Pedant17 was constructively invited to intersperse comments to Lsi_john's bullet points because Lsi_john used 5 tildes (date only) to identify the end of each such point, which I assume was done in experienced anticipation of such interspersed responses.
- However, I think Pedant17 then did go too far within other Lsi_john comments not identified and thus invited, in interspersing these responses keyworded: "provision for rebuttal"; "other side opinions"; "alleged prejudicial nature"; and "related to popular culture". (Note that certain other Pedant17 responses should be indented, though any editor is free to do that for him.)
- If necessary, we can debate whether Pedant17's acceptance of an apparent invitation to intersperse responses is appropriate, given that there is a formatting instruction for responses, and that an AfD page must be kept reasonably readable and identified by editor.
- If Pedant17 did go too far, I think the appropriate remedy would be, at a minimum, to collect Pedant17's uninvited interspersed responses into a terminal set of signed paragraphs, each having a signature of 03:46 2 May, and placed just under Lsi_john's signature of 20:55 1 May, but above Pedant17's paragraph keyworded "reminiscent of McCarthyism", it also having a signature of 03:46 2 May.
- If there is consensus, I call for Pedant17's responses to be moved back from the talk page in the format I've suggested. Milo 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- You assume incorrectly. I tagged my 5 ~'s without wiki knowledge, with the intention of identifying what I had changed within my own text, but not feeling it was necessary to clutter with full signature. If that was incorrect. I apologize. Lsi john 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Responses are OK within some limits, and these have been kept. Larger discussions are better had at the discussion page. Pedant interspersion was not OK, and have been moved to talk. He/She can reformat his comment, summarize them and put them back if he/she wishes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- – (View AfD)
Procedural listing. Correcting malformed nomination by Kkrystian. Serpent's Choice 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- See also Previous AFD, closed "no consensus, edging towards keep" on 16 June 2006. Serpent's Choice 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a totally-sourced list that follows a stringent criteria developed by editors over several years. It is stable, with only small changes made and no recent notable edit wars. The list has survived several VfDs and AfDs. -Will Beback · † · 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here are more previous deletion discussions:
- Keep. Despite my being the procedural re-lister of this article, I do not find any POV issues that result in inherent inadmissability as an article. The article is in need of work; there are self-reference issues, and some very nonstandard formatting (plus the brightly-colored nonstandard warning label hatbox). But AFD is not cleanup, and the history of this article through a number of pagemoves and deletion discussions makes clear that something can and should be written on this topic. Serpent's Choice 10:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, well referenced, though I'm amused Wikipedia is on the list. --Candy-Panda 10:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- per references. Eaomatrix 11:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 14:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Youd have to place nearly every religion/group/institution out there in the world (AA is a cult?, Al Qaeda is a cult??... someones using the term too loosely here), so far this only seems to cover a western view on the matter (all sources are from western media). This is the kind of article that becomes chaotic from so many additions, not to mention being highly unreliable (it needs far more than just a couple of magazines as credible sources). Kessingler
- Provisional Keep But it definitely needs some cleanup and some peer review/guidance in the process. There needs to be a clear definition of what the editor means by "Sociological Sources"--scholarly journals? Books? A certain kind of degree? AFAIK, there are a /lot/ more groups called "cults" by sociologists and psychologists than the four or five listed now.
-
- And it might be helpful to eliminate the "Cult in the media" section altogether. The media flings the word around like it's going out of style, and Salon (which I saw cited a few times) isn't known for its unbiased reporting as it is for its semi-sensarionalism and pundit-editorialists. And who for the luvva Pete considers "Insight" (published by one of the "cults"--says so right there on the page) a media source for purposes of this list? One cult newspaper being used to call other cults "cults" is a circular reference that makes my teeth ache. The media section appears hopelessly conflicted and I can only see this section crippling the article, as it's going to be attacked over and over.
- Thems my thoughts: Clean up + Clearly define + Re-source/cite as necessary = keep. Wysdom 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question Wysdom, Given that this AfD has come up (more than once) in the past, with similar clean up suggestions that were never done, may I ask your opinion on the AfD with respect to keep/delete, rather than provisional? Or, perhaps differently, are you committed to following through and getting it cleaned up and can you give a compelling arguement that it actually can be cleaned up? Lsi john 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. • "There needs to be a clear definition" There is, and had you read the recent article edit summaries, you would have seen references to it. The sociology source specifications appear at edit time as follows: "All references should be articles in peer-reviewed sociological journals or books by academics who have published extensively on the topic in peer-reviewed journals."
- • "Salon" Salon is a reliable source. Salon survived a major attempt in Nov 2006 to remove its status as a Wikipedia reliable source, essentially because it reports extensively on groups referred to as cults. Naturally, it's a prominent source for LOGRTAC. See Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia.
- • "Insight" A Washington Times / Unification Church publication. Cult or not, if they check their facts, they are a reliable source. Do you have serious evidence to the contrary? Consider that the Christian Science Monitor rose to international honor from similar origins.
- • "The media flings the [cult] word around like it's going out of style" I completely disagree with this reckless charge which gets periodically flung around by those with little knowledge of news publishing. Libel suits (non-Christian NRMs) and potential loss of advertisers (Christian NRMs) cause editors and publishers to be very careful of using the "cult" word unless there is, for example, a significant record of neighborhood grievances, member abuse, and/or activities contrary to law. I've encountered several examples of attempted cult reference listings at LOGRTAC, including a Jewish-related, and a Catholic-related group, for which there did seem to be a bunch of cult references by Google search, yet no reliable source to quote.
- • "hopelessly conflicted" Interesting that someone else called LOGRTAC the best-referenced page in Wikipedia. Both things can't be simultaneously true.
- • "attacked over and over" You're correct about that, but it can't be avoided. The originator of this AfD says on his user page that he's a follower of a listed group. I'm aware of other editors who are followers of listed groups or formerly listed groups. Groups have disappeared from the list, but are not always noticed and restored, as there are now too few "pro-reporting" editors remaining to patrol the page. I assume the anti-reporters will never rest until this article is gone, so even your "Provisional Keep" is welcome. Milo 07:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks, I think? Whoa, there, little camper! Save the snippy defensiveness for your enemies and detractors, or something. I was making suggestions I felt would legitimately improve the article and reduce the possible success of future AfDs--if those had been reasons supporting a "Delete" vote, I could kinda see...? Look, here's something to consider: what I thought off-the-cuff upon seeing your article for the first time? Is what some other people (readers) are going to think, too. And the perception of conflicted, convoluted whatever--you could be as right and correct as the day is long--is going to undermine your credibility with (at least some of, can't speak for what percentage of the population I represent) your readership. And you're not going to get a chance to explain/defend your rationale at-length to each and every one of them. That's got nothing to do with my vote, it's not personal--it's just well meant advice. In Good Faith. Assume what you will. Best regards, Wysdom 18:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I worked on this back in the day. You are right that the nominator is of a group named in it, but whether his reasons are valid or not are not per se important. Although they do show part of the problem. Point by point.
- •Definition: The definition might be clear, but it was created by us. I say us because I was somewhat involved at the time. We can create our own clear definition for many things, but it still runs the risk of being original research.
- •Salon and Washington Times are only two sources. Whether they're respectable or not doesn't say much about the validity of the list. If they're not respectable you just edit, it doesn't relate to validity or viability.
- •Media: As to the media "flinging it around" that was misleading from the keep voter. However there are a huge number of respected news sources in the world. They do an enormous amount of stories. Because of this each one can use the term "cult" sparingly and it will still add up to a mountain of groups called cults inaccurately. Especially as in much of the world news sources are speaking for a specific political ideology. (Hence small denominations opposed to same-sex marriage may "push buttons" for say liberal papers in the UK, while denominations that emphasize global-warming concerns may not have the benefit of the doubt for a conservative paper in the US)
- •Conflicted and sourced? Being conflicted and well sourced is easy to do. I can find valid sources that say a number of contradictory things, even on matters that are basically agreed to be fact.
- •Attacks: That you can't avoid constant attack, as you admit to, means that you have a list that will never be accurate for long and will be almost constantly on warning. This seems far from ideal.--T. Anthony 07:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep. For those of you unaware, the "French Report" (Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France), is a kind of government manifesto describing thoughtful efforts to stop the rise of yet more Destructive cults, feared by average citizens who demand government protection from groups like Aum Shinrikyo. On the smaller scale of cultic abuse, the individual human rights principles of the French Report have been quietly accepted by many world governments. Though there is considerable global agreement with the principles, there is some disagreement with the means of implementation known as "cultwatching". Exactly how to cultwatch with a balance of fairness to the human and civil rights of all persons and groups involved is a global work in progress. Nonetheless, the French Report principles confirmed, with some form of cultwatching rightly understood, form a basis-in-principle, that something like List of groups referred to as cults can and should exist at Wikipedia. Milo 07:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You are in serious need to re-read WP:NOT, Milo. And it will be nice if you listen to the concerns of editors in this page, rather than defend the current implementation of that list, as if there were no concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh... and I thought that this was not a list of cults... but just an NPOV list of groups referred to as such. See the problem? You are trying to create a list of cults, that it is not doable, maintainable, or NPOV, and call it something else. Your argument gives it away, Milo, and that problem needs to be acknowledged by you, primarily as the main "patroller" of this list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Holy cow! If this isn't enough all by itself to justify deletion, then probably nothing is. A cult watchlist?!!!!! Damn. Gota give him credit, at least he acknowledges it for what it is.
-
"the French Report principles confirmed, with some form of cultwatching rightly understood, form a basis-in-principle, that something like List of groups referred to as cults can and should exist at Wikipedia" --User:Milomedes|Milo
- Lsi john 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment First, thanks, but what I think doesn't matter to Wikipedia. Second, as a matter of intellectual honesty, do try to avoid claiming that I take a singular "is" position that I don't think exists. Unlike the absolutist philosophers here, I have no problem with modern dualistic reality. Electrons and baseballs are simultaneously waves and particles in the popular usage of really are. They really are both, and there is no way to separate these two natures.
- Likewise List of groups referred to as cults is dualistically real. Internally its references are as NPOV as editors including me can make it. Really. You will know if NPOV has been achieved if the list appears 'equally unfair to everyone'. OTOH, externally, anyone who reads and researches with it, can use its references to make a cultwatch list. Really.
- And no, just because you don't like the way other people use neutrally-constructed tools, is not a reason to delete. Milo 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If I misintrepreted your words, then I do apologize. The way I read it (my interpretation): You were making the claim that the report provided a basis-in-principle that some form of cultwatching should exist on wiki. My explitives were based on what appeared to be an honest and outright claim that cultwatching should be represented on wiki. A recent opening paragraph, in a similar list, also cited a form of cultwatching as a reason for that list, hence part of the reason for my interpretation of your words. If that is not what you meant then I stand corrected and offer apologies for my outspoken amazement. Lsi john 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- • Comment. No offense taken. This subject is nuanced and inherently easy to misunderstand.
- My position has evolved as I've gradually learned things obscured from public view — most importantly that there is a global public policy mandate to engage in cultwatching. I agree that Wikipedia should not actively engage in cultwatching, but I think it should passively support public policy by providing neutrally-constructed tools that are interesting or useful to curious readers, cult historians, and outright cultwatchers fulfilling that mandate. I didn't know about this mandate until long after I became a LOGRTAC editor, so I have no connection to a cultwatching agenda. If that mandate is eventually revoked, my position will shift along with public policy.
- My quoted statement is a reference to the potential effect of global public policy on Wikipedia article retention attitudes by editors. The French Report principles, plus some form of cultwatching rightly understood, are currently global public policy. If you as an editor don't care about cults one way or another, I think you shouldn't cast article deletion votes that might stand in the way of what the majority of citizens and governments in the world want to do to prevent the rise of future Destructive cults.
- In this case, LOGRTAC is a neutrally-constructed cult-references tool, which for 1920+ cult historians, appears to be the best compact reference list on the net, and perhaps is a usefully well-organized place to begin a cultwatch project. Yet it's not a Wikipedia cultwatch list, because it's not labeled or compiled that way. For example, there is no logic in watching historic-listed cults that no longer exist. Someone could edit the list to remove historic references and create a cultwatch list, though the result would still not be an investigation hotlist, since LOGRTAC doesn't list recent references from unreliable sources that a Google search finds. Milo 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment. I would prefer a delete or substantial overhaul, though I don't expect it to happen, because in many ways the list is quite good. The article content is fairly stable and listings are maintained in accord with the criteria, with a reference. I don't have a problem with the concept of such a list, given objective criteria. However, the list criteria don't really have a solid ground, are malleable, and are subject to consensus themselves. It might be argued that the list stability is an effect of the way the criteria have evolved such that the groups listed do not generate enough protest to overturn "consensus" - a tyranny of the majority obscured by the inclusion of a couple outliers. I'm not convinced that's the case, but I do rather think the criteria express an implicit bias, arising mainly from needing only one source, allowing use of the term "sect", and the 1920 cutoff. I don't have an ideal solution, but perhaps something like a "list of lists of cults", linking any list of cults notable enough to support its own article (like the French one), along with commentary on the meaning of these lists in general. Gimmetrow 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Hi Gimmetrow, we don't always agree on what to do following conclusions from an agreed set of facts, but I enjoy the depth of your insights into process.
- • "the list criteria don't really have a solid ground" It varies. There's a range from solid as rock to whatever is the current consensus.
- • "allowing use of the term "sect" " Rule #1 is so solid, that the ambiguities of which I was initially concerned have actually decreased. The USA "cult" meaning has been propagated by UK mainstream news. I know, because I did the British English definitions research (with fortuitous newspaper research help from a resident Brit at Talk:LOGRTAC). Read that research in the sourced definitions at the top of the Cult article.
- • "are malleable, and are subject to consensus themselves" Yes, but that merely reflects the current consensus nature of Wikipedia.
- • "list stability is an effect of the way the criteria have evolved such that the groups listed do not generate enough protest to overturn "consensus" " I agree, but it's a natural evolution, not a contrivance for the sake of stability. Global citizens (because most countries have NRMs) do not believe a major religion can be a cult (and they don't significantly care about the anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, cult-related theological dispute promoted by the Christian fundamentalist Counter-cult movement).
- • "the 1920 cutoff" J. Gordon Melton's authoritative declaration, that the modern use of one or more "cult" junior homonyms began circa 1920 — cleanly removes LOGRTAC from the need to list references to major religions under modern, populist cult labels at which global citizens scoff. Debates such as whether to list an obscure cult massacred in the middle ages, by a major religion listable as a cult of antiquity — thankfully those just went away following the 1920+ rule #4. With stability came ability, to debate the cult references most editors care about.
- • "tyranny of the majority" Now that I have seen how the pro-reporting majority are distractible, while anti-reporters never give up, I no longer consider that to be a long-term problem. It's the majority of Wikipedia users who are currently at risk of losing access to information. As pro-reporters who built the list have melted away, the consensus has reverted toward the anti-reporters (a diverse group of philosophers and NRM followers or supporters.) If they can't AfD LOGRTAC, they will delete it piece-by-piece. It's already happening.
- • "needing only one source" That would be rule #0. It's just the current consensus. Early on I debated in favor of multiple sources, but the consensus remained at single-source. After LOGRTAC lost the government reports, I now no longer favor multiple sources. With suitable compromises on again including government reports, I could change my mind again on multiple sources.
- • "list of lists of cults" That is a separate article. It sounds like a good idea, and perhaps is useful, but it's not a replacement for LOGRTAC described as "one-stop shopping" for researchers. AFAIK, for cult reference research there's nothing else as useful as LOGRTAC on the net. Milo 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Milo's response is convincing. This list has its basis in "cultwatching" and "there's nothing else as useful... on the net." This article is an attempt to find some middle ground between List of new religious movements and Destructive cult by a "pro-reporting" majority, and not simply a neutral compiled list of media references. As such it is original research, synthesizing multiple references in ways those references wouldn't necessarily support. Gimmetrow 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- • Comment. I don't know that LOGRTAC's origins are from cultwatching, but that's a reasonable assumption. I recall a report at LOGRTACIGR, which suggested that after Peoples Temple imploded in 1978, the U.S. government began to consider what to do about cults of which the public had generally been complaining for years (the Cult debate). The problem then and now is how to observe the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, while preventing future deaths of citizens and government employees by Destructive cults. Obviously, cults can't just be ignored, and governments obviously can't go back to the middle ages solution of massacres.
- The point I think you are overlooking is that cultwatching is the neutral, middle ground solution that they devised. Recall that the Peoples Republic of China was then considered a communist enemy, yet too powerful to actively oppose, so the solution was "containment" and "China watching". It wouldn't surprise me if "cultwatching" was suggested as a parallel concept.
- The "pro-reporting" position is the neutral compiled list of references (media and other types). As taught in journalism schools ideal reporting is unbiased (what Wikipedia calls NPOV); while commentary, editorial, and opinion are biased or point-of-view statements. The inverse, anti-reporting, is not biased POV, rather it just tries to stop the flow of information. Currently anti-reporting is achieving success at LOGRTAC. One editor in particular became so successful that he was able to remove his NRM from the list and there remained too few pro-reporters to stop him.
- I respectfully disagree that there is any original research in gathering of LOGRTAC references. Nothing there can be fairly described as "synthesizing" during the compilation of references, in what is the near-equivalent of a white pages business telephone book (a selection of just businesses). (U.S. Courts have ruled that telephone listings are not original and therefore not eligible for copyright). There is certainly nothing described about the references that they don't support, since the list is purely descriptive. It says only that the letters c-u-l-t and s-e-c-t (and foreign equivalents) appear at the pointed-to locations along with a group name that was described as a c-u-l-t or s-e-c-t. That's it! "c-u-l-t" and "s-e-c-t" don't even have to meet a definition test to be listed. All definitions not excluded are accepted (fancults are excluded). Milo 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete I think I may have voted keep in the past, but it's been given over three years and several AfD "let's clean it up" recommendations. That didn't solve things because it's just not solvable. It's always going to attract a morass of activists and arguments. Destructive cult, Category:Destructive cults, Cult suicide, and Category:Cult suicides probably cover the matter of cults enough.--T. Anthony 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Every religious group that has ever existed has been referred to as a cult at some point in its history. Otto4711 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per T. Anthony. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep provided the bar for cult reference is higher than a simple pop culture reference that a group might be a cult. The criteria for listing cults seem to do a good job of this. Avoiding the statement that 'these groups are cults' by focusing on references to cults is a smart way to get around the subjectivity issue. Antonrojo 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Keep, highly sourced, with highly developed inclusionary criteria. Also per excellent points by User:Will Beback. Smee 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete The inclusion criteria are clear, but there is arbitrariness which masks POV; Why is an organization that existed in 1919 automatically not a cult per this list, regardless of references? And a single reference warrants inclusion is a very low threshhold. The Roman Catholic Church would likely have been called a cult by someone, so if it hadn't existed before 1919, it would be included. Not sure how this can be surmounted? If this is kept it should be renamed to List of groups founded since 1920 referred to as cults by at least one source to accurately reflect the real inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Article is useless and arbitrary, practically serving as an outlet for editors who don't like certain groups; the groups' articles present more balanced views, and are much more useful. This list is unencyclopedic and it's inclusion does not serve Wikipedia. Gatorgalen 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It is not an encyclopedia article, it appears to be a hit list which has no strict criteria for inclusion. If virtually any group can be added to this list, by being referred to as a cult, by any reliable source, the list can and will easily grow to include virtually every organization in existence.
- Wiki rules already prevent us from saying an organization is a cult, by virtue of the pejorative nature of the word. Creating a virtually unregulated list of purported cults, without any strict definition being applied for inclusion, would seem to violate the rationale for not allowing us to specifically call a group a cult in the first place.
- To the unsuspecting reader who is unaware of the subtle implication of "referred to as": List of groups referred to as cults equates to: List of Cults and thus violates wiki policy at least in spirit.
- WP:OR - This is a collection of individual organizations, gathered together. It appears to be a form of original research. The only significant aspect of the article is the list itself. The entries are not cited as cited lists of cult, but as individual organizations referred to as cults. The collection of those individual items into one article-list, would seem to be the work product of original-research. The individual citations may be WP:RS, however for wiki editors to do the collecting, under one single banner, exclusively for the purpose of a single list, is WP:OR. 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The first TWO full paragraphs, are a disclaimer which seek to exculpate, explain and rationalize the list with double speak. A wiki article should not need two full paragraphs talking about the article and why it isn't bad, rather than the subject matter itself. 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- And, McCarthyism comes to mind. Lsi john 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The individual citations may be WP:RS, however for wiki editors to do the collecting, under one single banner, exclusively for the purpose of a single list, is WP:OR." That's quite a surprising statement, seeing as how creating an overall overview of a subject from individual citations that are reliable sources is what Wikipedians are supposed to do, and not original research. It seems what you're saying is that even if there's no lack of reliable sources to say that Nixon was a U.S. President and no lack of reliable sources to say that Washington was a U.S. President, it would be original research to put them in List of U.S. Presidents unless you can cite a reliable source which is itself a list which contains them both. That's a rather interesting view of what the original research policy means but I don't think it's the correct one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed does appear to be a paradox. The more I look at the LIST aspect, the more it appears to technically violate WP:OR. I believe the contradiction is solved with Categories (though those also are subject to POV). So, yes, technically, a List of Presidents would WP:OR unless someone else publishes the list and we cite it. (Fortunately for us, such lists exist already!) There is a subtle difference however. A List of Presidents would be a list of factual data. A list of groups referred to as cults is a list of individual opinions, which is significantly different from list of factual data.
- And, yes, I am being very technical, but I believe I am also being accurate. Courts regularly strike down laws, due to technical paradox and contradiction and thus close loopholes. When loopholes are closed, the good along with the bad are thrown out.
- In a normal article, there needs to be a consensus of opinion for information to be included, with minority opinions being given lesser importance. For example, in an article about dogs, it is doubtful that an author who writes "all dogs are vicious" would get any representation in the article. In this article we do not have a general consensus for each item in the list which would be required in any other article. In this article a minority opinion of 1 (from popular media) qualifies for inclusion. And there is no provision for rebuttal.
- Even if you disagree with this being WP:OR, or ignore the WP:OR and cite WP:LIST for validity, it is WP:POV by definition because there is no other side represented.
- It also violates WP:LIST due to the prejudicial nature of the term cult and is fairly indiscriminate in the inclusion criteria (popular media?) and appears to recognize that it violates WP policy, in its clear attempt to divest itself from being used for any particular purpose. And the popular media seems to back-door the WP:RS policy, as popular media is generally not qualified to determine cult status.
- Lsi john 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- "The individual citations may be WP:RS, however for wiki editors to do the collecting, under one single banner, exclusively for the purpose of a single list, is WP:OR." That's quite a surprising statement, seeing as how creating an overall overview of a subject from individual citations that are reliable sources is what Wikipedians are supposed to do, and not original research. It seems what you're saying is that even if there's no lack of reliable sources to say that Nixon was a U.S. President and no lack of reliable sources to say that Washington was a U.S. President, it would be original research to put them in List of U.S. Presidents unless you can cite a reliable source which is itself a list which contains them both. That's a rather interesting view of what the original research policy means but I don't think it's the correct one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This highly-regulated and self-policing encyclopedic (meaning all-encompassing and comprehensive) article provides valuable resources. It has not yet expanded to include my local Scrabble Club, which suggests that the defined criteria operate effectively; and indeed the article has not shown the dynamism of some individually debated topics, but has appeared to stabilize well without becoming scerotic. If an influx of newly-defined "referred to as cults" were to arrive, we could readily set up an equally encyclopedia-worthy parallel article with slightly more restrictive entry-criteria. -- The format of the article readily allows a researcher to distinguish a single reference citing a less-known source from a series of references spanning the spectrum of various media. Alphabetical listings show neither fear nor favor and provide a well-known organizing principle militating against chaos, and the use of Wikilinks preserves the article from much of the convoluted edit-warring associated with some individual groups or sets of groups. -- The use of the word "cult" in viciously pejorative or strictly legalistic senses receives a useful counter here. The dynamic genius of the English language allows respected sociologists to speak of "the cult of higher education" or "the cult of professionalism", and such usages may serve to remind us not to use the word "cult" as a narrow proper noun, but as a tool for characterizing numerous aspects of the world -- even in an encyclopedia which can reflect popular usage. This "reality" transcends the views of the lawyer or of the soldier in the NRM-wars, and seems all the more refreshing for that. People talk about "cults" or "cultishness", some of that talk seeps (selectively) into various sorts of media (from popular rags to scholarly tomes) and there results a Wikipedia article reflecting this cultural phenomenon: people with a view on certain organizations -- organizations grouped under this one rubric and/or under others (compare religion, Large Group Awareness Training, Destructive cult, business...) -- I would like to see a little more up-front discussion on the page itself as to the evolution and application of the criteria for inclusion. -- The alleged uselessness of the article does not per se provide a valid criterion for deletion; nor does bad-mouthing it as an alleged hit-list. The article does indeed offer lists, but that function has become firmly established in Wikipedia and forms one of the great merits of a collaborative Wiki: everyone gets to expand and expatiate on the concept. -- Pedant17 02:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Nice slight of hand there. This is a list of groups. I don't believe that "Cult of professionalism" or "cult of higher education" are considered groups. How many of the 80+ entries in this list represent your proposed innocuous usage of the label cult? Maybe 1, if you count wiki's entry. At least have the decency to acknowledge the list for what it is and provide your justification for keeping it. Lsi john 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Carlossuarez46 - the criteria have indeed been wrangled over by many editors, however that doesn't stop the result being original research. Addhoc 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is a black list but not a Wikipedia article. "Cult" is used right here as a negative term. Negative classification of people because they are member in some religious/esoteric etc group? No way. Non-RS are used throughout. Media is NOT a source for religious questions, especially when quoting someone's opinion, and scholars don't use "cult" as a term. Misou 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you meant to say "no true scholar", there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Will Beback. Many of these arguments, such as "Media is NOT a source for religious questions" and "scholars don't use "cult" as a term" seem to disclose the true major reason why this article's non-existence has been and continues to be sought: not because it does anything wrong in sourcing the significant POV that cults do exist, but because it gives that significant POV appropriate representation. Were it somehow possible to source the list to God Himself, I'm sure we would still regularly deal with AfDs packed with complaints that He is not a reliable source for this matter; that by definition no one who does not reject the possibility of the existence of cults could be reliable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- From the way I read WP:LIST, an wiki-list should be NPOV. The list name should not imply guilt or conduct. And, we are specifically prohibited from saying "ABC is a cult". The rules for WP:CIVIL are also clear: my saying This is not an attack, but Jossi is an arrogant ass. would not magically make my comment WP:CIVIL. By the same logic, 2 full paragraphs as a disclaimer on why its not a pejorative list and doesn't violate wiki rules, doesn't mean it isn't pejorative and that it complies.
- I would be interested to hear your explanation for why this article requires two full paragraphs of disclaimer and instruction to the reader. Lsi john 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 'Cult' is simply a derogatory term for a group. What we have here is a well-referenced list of groups that other people don't like. Why would Wikipedia keep a list like that? ...except for the fact that a group of anti-religious editors like to keep it here as a poke in the eye of other editors and readers. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Inherently POV. The term cult has thoroughly morphed into a pejorative term; there is no "good cult" (unless, of course, it is a "dead cult"). For every RS that quotes a POV-pusher calling something a cult there is RS quoting a POV-pusher saying it is not - so what do we do? Let's just not. --Justanother 21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep. At least for NPOV. Wikipedia does have some of the charateristics of a cult. Whether it is or not is a different issue. Otherwite, it looks like censorship, which is what a cult would do.Jewishprincess 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Note to closing adomin: This edit was this user's 5th edit in Wikipedia
- Comment It's just amazing what an education at LOGRTAC will do for a totally negative "cult" attitude. First, Alcoholics Anonymous has been scientifically proved to be a beneficial cult. Second, by calculation on the prevalence of cults shown in the Cult article, something like 96-98% of all cults are good or good enough to not annoy their neighbors, or otherwise cause themselves to be written about as a cult in the newspaper. Milo 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Observation: Then you add to the claim that the article should be deleted or at least seriously modified. Acoholics Anonymous is listed in a very short non-aphabetized list which is completely overshadowed by the Huge alphabetized media-list below. In fact, I double checked the list before responding and didn't see it. Then to be sure I didn't type something stupid, I did a word search and found it. I had to look twice. Lsi john 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete or radically alter it's terms of reference. Cult is almost invariably seen as a perjorative word. I don't see the point of a list of 99% media opinions or passing references on what a particular journalist (from some pretty minor papers in some cases) may choose to call a cult on any particular day. Some references are clearly ironical. Whats so special about journalists? What does each journalist mean by 'cult'? Do we care? The list is quite entertaining, but that's not enough. The opening paragraphs are so full of disclaimers it becomes meaningless as an article and in fact not an article at all. Now a list of bodies described as cults, by notable researchers or commentators in the field (which may well include some journalists) in an article that discussed the meaning of 'cult'; now that may be worth it. Fainites 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. Cults are the subject of serious academic study. Anywhere the term is used in such a way it can be added anywhere to Wikipedia. If its used pejoratively (in a pejorative phrase) then there is a question. In academic studies - eg cultic studies, its not used pejoratively. Any information from cultic studies, including lists of cults, will be a benefit to Wikipedia. Docleaf 04:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment. You are right, but this list is not about academic studies of cults. It is a list of groups that were referred at least once in the media a such (a random criteria agreed by some editors). That is not "academic". If your comment means that all the media-related references should be removed, then I say so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment In reply. I don't think I have ever read a media report of a cult that is strictly pejorative. I have read many that have stated their view that a group is a cult though. If someone states in a newspaper that "McDonalds is a stinking cult" then that would be pejorative. I would exclude that. If it was a report categorising, or calling something a cult with a view to describing it as such then its fine, especially if it describes behaviours that are consistent with cults. All according to sensible editing. I have to consider the consequences of allowing the dismissal of media sources(I know you're not dismissing btw, but it could lead there). A lot of media sources are reliable after all. I feel the solution really isn't to delete: Just focus on adding reliable sources and improving the list. Some of the information is fine already and there's a wealth of other even more reliable quality sources to add. Docleaf 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment Reply. Your comments speak to cults in general, not specifically to the value of this article. WP:RS and WP:V when applied to other articles are intended to make sure we are citing accurate and verifiable facts. The nature of the title of this article in combination with the requirements to be listed circumvent the rules for proper sourcing. A reporter (or letter to the editor) for popular media, do not necessarily have any credentials to call something a cult. In a normal article, an offhand remark by a journalist that McDonalds is a cult would not be admissable in an article about McDonalds (unless that reporter is a recognized expert of course). However, that reporter could be cited in this article and McDonalds could be listed. (notice wiki's presence on the list) \
- The AfD is not to remove cult from wiki, it is to remove this particular article. Lsi john 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment-- The problem, Docleaf, is that the article never manages to get cleaned up, and that is why it ends up again and again in AfD. When you have editors that unequivocally see this a source for cult-watchers, the article suffers, disclaimers upon disclaimers need to be added to the article, and the mess remains a mess. In previous AFD's there were many editors that asked for tightening criteria and cleaning up the article, but that has not happened, and I am afraid it will not happen if the Afd closes again with no consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment. I'd apply patience (of Job). The subject of cults is increasing in importance and significance and more reliable sources are being generated in cults/sects/sektes/sectes/new alternative religions or whatever synonym or collection of synonyms you like to apply. In fact the way the subject is being handled in general is increasingly intelligent and informed by both academia and the media. The list is pretty much guaranteed to be improved in short or long term. Docleaf 05:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep per above--Sefringle 04:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Jossi's comment -- The qualification for this list, being mentioned in a media outlet, does not retain the academic notability an accurate list of cults, as defined by experts, would have. Ichibani 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep List is clear from its name that it is not objectively trying to identify what is and isn't a cult, but rather what has been referred to as a cult in a reliable source. Because that is the case, I don't feel it violates NPOV principles to have such a list, and see it as an important listing to be kept up to date by Wikipedia editors. Article may always be a source of controversy, edit wars, and debate, especially given the open nature of Wikipedia and the sheer number of members of groups on the list who don't agree with the label their group has gotten; but the only other option is to throw up our hands and give up trying to document notable but controversial topics. Xanthius 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment The title does not say "list of groups referred to as cults by reliable sources". You are adding that based on your wiki-knowledge and I don't see what you see. Reliable source or Qualified source are neither in the title, nor the inclusion criteria. Popular media is the inclusion criteria. This would allow a high school student to write an article or letter-to-the-editor in The Montgomery County Sentinel, and get a group listed here, which seems to back-door WP:RS rules. This article has had 5-AfD's, and it still containing these flaws. That seems to indicate that it can't or won't be fixed and it needs to go.
- If we accept that:
-
- The list is not trying to identify what is and is not a cult.
- The list criteria only requires a single popular media source to refer to a group as a cult and it can be listed here.
- There is no method for any group, or anyone on their behalf, to contest inclusion on the basis of cult status. This makes it an easy-on, never-off list. (hence my earlier McCarthyism comment).
-
- Then, how could this not be a POV article? Simply referring to a group as a cult, without scientifically establishing the fact, is the POV of the author. Whether or not the author is correct in his claim, is not important to this article, because our requirement is simply that the group was referred to as a cult, not that it has been established that the group is a cult. Collecting a list of POV references with no place for rebuttal or removal, creates a POV article. ::For counter opinions, I suppose we could create an article: "List of groups referred to as cults but claimed by others to not be a cult".
- Collecting a list of groups which were referred to as cults, is a back door way to make a list we would not otherwise be able to make. And, if, as you say, its not really a list of cults, wouldn't that make it a WP:TRIVIA article?
- List of groups which have been determined to be cults by a consensus of scientists and academics would be a true and accurate list; where professionals identified and tagged groups, and validated the claim with a cult litmus test.
- List of groups referred to as cults by more than one qualified scientist and/or academic, might be an acceptable list.
- This list, with its present title and criteria, is a collection of WP:POV, thus making it WP:POV and WP:TRIVIA IMO.
- We may be on technically legal ground, by using "referred to as", but I suspect the typical reader will still see this title as "List of cults". And before someone says "we can't help what the reader thinks", I say yes we can, by being clear and staying on morally solid ground. Change the name to: "list of cults", and I'll say keep.
- Notable or conversational topics are not the issue here. This article is neither.
- Lsi john 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This list is as close to a list of cults as we can get without being POV. We could never have an article named "List of cults" because we would have to objectively define what a cult is, something even experts in the field have not been able to do. This is the best way to have such a list without objectively defining what a cult is. As long as the sources are reliable, which brings me to my next point..
- The reliable source guidelines apply to the list, because they apply to any article in Wikipedia. If a religious group has been identified as a cult in a media source that is reliable, odds are pretty likely that it is a cult/has cult-like tendencies, and belongs on the list. The list is very useful to readers interested in cults, while still maintaining an understanding that (especially in instances like the "Wikipedia" mention) further looking into every case is certainly needed because the list only contains groups "referred to" as cults, which in some cases gets them on this list because of somebody's choice of words rather than true cultic behaviors in the group. Looking over the list, however, it seems to primarily be a list of groups that most researchers would consider cults/cultic. That says to me the list has been a success thus far, with a few expected kinks, and should carry on and continue to be developed. Xanthius 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- This article is not an article on Groups that exhibited cultic behavior. It is a list that only requires one media source as criteria for inclusion, regardless what that media source is and how the word cult was used by the journalist, and with no possibility whatsoever to describe alternative opinions of that group, and thus in violation of WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Rebuttal opportunity is provided in the article of the particular group. Anyone wanting further information as to how and why a group is listed on the page would have to either check into the sources (which are very well linked on this page) or click the wikilink and read the group's entry where they would generally find criticism/controversy and a response to that criticism. Again, in my opinion, having the title of the page include "referred to as cults" makes it very clear to readers that groups that aren't considered "cults" by researchers (like Wikipedia) may end up on the list, and invites the reader to look into it each instance further. Xanthius 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I think this quote from above really summarizes the whole issue "We could never have an article named "List of cults" because we would have to objectively define what a cult is, something even experts in the field have not been able to do. This is the best way to have such a list without objectively defining what a cult is." That I think really summarizes the motive of having such an article, and makes it clear why this article should be deleted. It is nothing more than attempt at making a List of Cults without having to remain NPOV or be objective in any way in defining cult.Gatorgalen 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interest in cults which are perceived as such by the media is just as valid as interest in cults as defined by researchers. Most newspaper articles that refer to a group as a cult do so via the quote of a researcher or research group that has classified them as such. Using "referred to" is a necessary evil, but I believe it is the best way to accomplish a list of cult groups while still maintaining NPOV. I will say that I would not be opposed to something like A list of groups classified as a cult by prominent research group X. Determining which research group(s) to trust may fall within the bounds of original research however, which is why I think the list has settled into the name/rules it has. Xanthius 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes the not-defined problem is easily solved. Just define it as for example - science - is defined. Actually science is vaguely and variously defined but Wikipedia chooses a definition. Then goes on to include all subjects that are thought to be science. Many WP subjects are vaguely defined or even wrongly defined according to some sources. The main point of the list is to help the reader browse related subjects. Its helpful and complies with NPOV (especially in terms of its links to other reliable information)Docleaf 05:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interest in cults which are perceived as such by the media is just as valid as interest in cults as defined by researchers. Most newspaper articles that refer to a group as a cult do so via the quote of a researcher or research group that has classified them as such. Using "referred to" is a necessary evil, but I believe it is the best way to accomplish a list of cult groups while still maintaining NPOV. I will say that I would not be opposed to something like A list of groups classified as a cult by prominent research group X. Determining which research group(s) to trust may fall within the bounds of original research however, which is why I think the list has settled into the name/rules it has. Xanthius 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I think this quote from above really summarizes the whole issue "We could never have an article named "List of cults" because we would have to objectively define what a cult is, something even experts in the field have not been able to do. This is the best way to have such a list without objectively defining what a cult is." That I think really summarizes the motive of having such an article, and makes it clear why this article should be deleted. It is nothing more than attempt at making a List of Cults without having to remain NPOV or be objective in any way in defining cult.Gatorgalen 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rebuttal opportunity is provided in the article of the particular group. Anyone wanting further information as to how and why a group is listed on the page would have to either check into the sources (which are very well linked on this page) or click the wikilink and read the group's entry where they would generally find criticism/controversy and a response to that criticism. Again, in my opinion, having the title of the page include "referred to as cults" makes it very clear to readers that groups that aren't considered "cults" by researchers (like Wikipedia) may end up on the list, and invites the reader to look into it each instance further. Xanthius 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- This article is not an article on Groups that exhibited cultic behavior. It is a list that only requires one media source as criteria for inclusion, regardless what that media source is and how the word cult was used by the journalist, and with no possibility whatsoever to describe alternative opinions of that group, and thus in violation of WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes this is an electronic medium. I would make improvements though all the same. With entries like Branch Davidians, Falun Gong, Landmark, and such I think this article has such a lot going for it. It helps the reader really understand the cult subject quite well. Still improve and defintiely keep. Docleaf 01:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above.Biophys 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am inquiring as to the notability of the list, based on its criteria, on the article's talk page. An AfD doesn't seem to be the best place to explore that question right now. Ichibani 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Will Beback. This is totally sourced. — MichaelLinnear 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Historically, groups such as the Council on Mind Abuse and the Cult Awareness Network have been subject to intense attacks simply for stating their position towards groups who exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Freedom of Religion should never be construed to be superior to Freedom of Speech. Wikipedians should have the moral courage to report where it has been pointed out by experts that groups have used coercive persuasion to control its members. I like this article and I think it is well that the criteria is general and non-selective. My compliments to its editors. ClaudeReigns 08:33, 4 May 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.
- 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.
This debate has gone beyond its usual purpose, and demands a decision not only on the convenience of keeping a single article, but also a pronouncement on the extension to which certain guidelines and policies apply to individual articles for episodes of TV series. Therefore, it's necessary to analyze each and every argument elaborated for every position. Of course, this decision is not an easy one to make. Arguments to delete are based in a correct interpretation, albeit somewhat literal, of existent and applicable rules and guidelines such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE, and have substance in my eyes. On the other hand, the reasons exposed to keep, although they prevail in raw numbers, seem to be based more on the usefulness of these articles and a general promise of cleanup and search for third-party, reliable sources in order to prove their alleged notability than in actual encyclopedic arguments in tune with our current policies. Commendable as this position is, it doesn't suffice to consider them worthy of a space at Wikipedia unless joined with a serious, unequivocal will to keep them in accordance with the established principles of notability and verifiability.
Like I mention above, a large majority seem to indicate a clear tendency to keep. However, in attention of the strength of the arguments brought upon this debate, as well as having the extension of it gone beyond a single article, I consider this as No consensus achieved. The possibility of submitting individual articles to future AfDs in order to establish its/their notability and/or verifiability on a case-by-case basis remains open. - Phaedriel - 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kept Man
- – (View AfD)
This is a bundled AfD of all the individual articles for episodes of a minor children's series, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. The episodes are non-notable, unsourced, and typically contain inflated plot summaries, microtrivia, etc., and are already adequately covered in List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes. Following discussion at WP:AN/I I made them into redirect sto the list, but one editor has insisted on reverting to the full forms, so rather than speedily deleting them (which, I think, would be justfied), I brought them here.
I am also nominating the following related pages:
--Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There is nothing wrong with pages for individual episodes of a television show. Also, what is there to source on an episode page?Hallpriest9 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The development and reception information that's supposed to be there. You are right that "This is an article about an idividual episode" is not in itself grounds for deletion, but the requirements for inclusion still need to be met, such as WP:N and WP:NOT#IINFO#7. Jay32183 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The articles are sourced. They use the episode as a primary (not the best but still a source) and TV.com/IMDB for other info such as writer, director and other info. There is no official policy that qualifies these for deletion or in your case redirection to the list. These episodes contain more info than can be added to the list. If we added the writers, directors, guest-stars and all that info the list of episodes would be a mile long. (and by the way another editor shared my view asking for consensus on this matter). Unless we create another wikiproject for TV and movies, theres nothing wrong with having them. As it was stated before when I tried this with Phil of the Future, it's much easier to expand and work on an article if it actually exists. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. See List of I Love Lucy episodes for an example of how directors and other info can be included without the need for thousands of stub pages. Tables - they can do magic things! --Action Jackson IV 22:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Also this would create a precedent for deleting all episode article. Just thought all the people who !vote should keep that in mind. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Your reasoning is truly crap, you give no example as to how they are non-notable. The Suite Life of Zack & Cody is a popular American television series that attracts god knows how many viewers, that for one is notability per episode. A quick Google search turned up tons of sources. Take the example on AN/I I give, you saying they're cruft... doesn't make them cruft. The consensus is to improve, not delete. Matthew 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, stay civil. Secondly, it's not up to me to give evidence for them not being notable; the onus is on the person who claims that they are, according to Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. Thirdly, talk of improvement misses my point. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You're the only one being uncivil here, using pejorative terms such as "cruft" (I hope that word wasn't too big for you, btw). Matthew 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Your reasoning is truly crap" I guess you're saying that about myself and others as well, since we have similar reasoning. -- Ned Scott 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Episodes shouldn't be the subjects of individual Wikipedia articles unless they meet guidelines resembling WP:FILM, i.e. multiple independent published reviews and/or published works about the episode. For example, the Star Trek episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" is the subject of at least one book (I don't mean a novelization of the story, I mean a book about the episode's production, history of the script, literary criticism of it, etc) so there's some justification for an article about it per WP practices. All other articles on TV series episodes should be deleted or merged to the main article about the series in question. 75.62.7.22 17:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)— 75.62.7.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment The Suite Life Goes Hollywood is actually undeniably notable. It is one of the few 1hr episodes that Disney has made. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's fine to keep articles about episodes for which notability is established through independent sources. Obviously I didn't research every episode on that list so it's possible that a few of those articles are salvageable with the right documentation. Disney (either under its own brand or through various corporate tentacles) has made a lot of TV series though, so I don't see anything remarkable from the above Suite Life description. 75.62.7.22 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The episodes are not notable outside of the one show. No relevant information besides bloated plot summaries can possibly be written for them. Any other information is simple trivia, and/or cruft. The only television episodes that actually need articles are ones of great significance (often pilot episodes) and great controversy (certain episodes of South Park come to mind) that meet the set guidelines for these kind of articles. Any other articles are just over-signifying the episode's importance. Nemu 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- You forget the info about producers, writers, directors, cast all that can't be placed on the list of episodes. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- That kind of information would likely belong under relevant sections on the show's main article anyways ("development", "characters" and the such would be relevant sections). Single episode cast members and people like them aren't really notable, so there would be no need to mention them. Nemu 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except directors, writers and producers aren't always the same for every episode. An adding each individual episodes directors, etc. to the main page would crowd that as well. With individual pages we can add international title names and air dates. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You missed my point. Only the main staff of the show needs to be mentioned. I don't know how many writers it could possibly have, but if it's a larger number, they don't need to be mentioned. A simple development section talking about how the staff devised it would cover anyone that is notable. Any notable information is easily covered in the table. Nemu 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except directors, writers and producers aren't always the same for every episode. An adding each individual episodes directors, etc. to the main page would crowd that as well. With individual pages we can add international title names and air dates. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- That kind of information would likely belong under relevant sections on the show's main article anyways ("development", "characters" and the such would be relevant sections). Single episode cast members and people like them aren't really notable, so there would be no need to mention them. Nemu 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You forget the info about producers, writers, directors, cast all that can't be placed on the list of episodes. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is no need for every single episode of any TV show to have it's own article. There are other places of Wikipedia that can run the plots, cast lists, etc. Too many of these contain large trivia/quote sections that are meaningless. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect all to List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes per WP:EPISODE. While I did not check every single article, the several that I did check were, indeed, nothing but plot summaries and "trivia" sections. If any of the episodes, say, won notable awards or were otherwise notable independent of the series itself, then a properly referenced article can be written. I would not take this, however, as a referendum on all such series of articles because the state of the articles and the notability of the individual episodes will vary the proper course of action. Otto4711 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - we have a consensus to improve articles like this. Cast and crew info is very encyclopedic, and not at all cruft. The DVDs contain interviews that can be used for extra information. - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually, we have a consensus to consider merging and redirecting these sorts of problematic articles. Otto4711 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I believe the consensus he is refering to is the one established here
- Delete - I agree with Nemu. Besides, this is bordering needlessness.--Biotudor 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- What the hell is with this lame innuendo? Just because I haven't bothered myself much to editing wikipedia, I am not entitled to express my opinion? This is totally outrageous. I totally feel insulted.--Biotudor 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as per Nemu's convincing reasoning. And let me also remind people that overblown plot summaries are a problem not only in terms of "Fancruft", but also in terms of copyright. Plotlines of fictional works are subject to copyright. It's a fair use issue just like with images: a plot summary needs to be subordinate to a legitimate encyclopedic goal, such as critical commentary. Long plot summaries that don't fulfil such a goal and which aren't really summaries but full-blown renarrations of the whole series cross the line into "derivative works", and are therefore nonfree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I doubt that a "plotline" is copyrightable anymore than facts are copyrightable. Edison 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Try and publish a novel that has exactly the same plotline as the latest Dan Brown thriller, and see who will sue you. Or better, just read up on fair use law, for instance here: [34] Quote:
- Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who's Who and What's What, containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show "Twin Peaks" as well as detailed descriptions of plot, character and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd. 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)
- Not a fair use. A company published a book of trivia questions about the events and characters of the "Seinfeld" television series. The book included questions based upon events and characters in 84 "Seinfeld" episodes and used actual dialogue from the show in 41 of the book's questions. Important factors: As in the "Twin Peaks" case, the book affected the owner's right to make derivative "Seinfeld" works such as trivia books. ( Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).)
- Reply: Try and publish a novel that has exactly the same plotline as the latest Dan Brown thriller, and see who will sue you. Or better, just read up on fair use law, for instance here: [34] Quote:
- Comment I doubt that a "plotline" is copyrightable anymore than facts are copyrightable. Edison 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sounds like the "direct quotations" were a crucial factor in the case. Absent that, the plot is not copyrightable. One could always find prior uses of the plot or of each of its elements. "West Side Story" and countless other works used the "Romeo and Juliet" plot. Edison 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Duh. "Romeo and Juliet" is public domain due to age, obviously. As for the cases cited, it may or may not be that direct quotations were a factor, but the main thing was the presence of an overblown plot summary: "Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd., supra, involved a book published by PIL concerning a television series. The book included a detailed recounting of the plot of the first eight episodes: ‘every intricate plot twist and element of character development appear in the Book in the same sequence as in the teleplays.’ 996 F.2d at 1373. The court held that the book was basically an abridgment of the script and that abridgments (despite contrary, aged authority) are generally not fair use. Id. at 1375-76. The plot summaries were so extensive as to be substitutes for rather than complements of the copyrighted scripts." [35] This applies here exactly. And as for the general copyrightability of plots, you may chose to believe it or not, - just read up on stuff, I can't be bothered to spoon-feed you even more references right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sounds like the "direct quotations" were a crucial factor in the case. Absent that, the plot is not copyrightable. One could always find prior uses of the plot or of each of its elements. "West Side Story" and countless other works used the "Romeo and Juliet" plot. Edison 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete per nom, above, and WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Merge individual pages into List of Episodes of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, in a manner similar to the presentation of the first three seasons in List of I Love Lucy episodes, and redirect individual pages to this aforementioned list article. (NOTE: As per User:Jay32183's concerns, I would like to clarify/add Strong protect for individual articles, post-redirection, to keep the redirects from being reverted. The following argument still stands. I'm completely happy with either one large List of Episodes of TSLOZ&C article, or articles for each season). I've made this argument before, and I'll make it again: Certain episodes of television shows do deserve individual mention within an encyclopedia, either for becoming iconic within popular culture via its artistic presentation or for becoming iconic within popular culture via other reasons. When a television series is constructed as individual mini-movies (see: Twilight Zone or even Columbo), it does make sense to split individual "episodes" off into their own separate articles (especially given that those two shows I just mentioned had a reputation for casting "A-list" actors (the first non-pilot episode of Columbo was actually directed by that E.T. dude), hence the gritty-nitty obsessive details of plot and cinematography can serve and likely have been served by a film historian). I'm not going to get into an argument over the merits of the A-list, or what separates Burgess Meredith and Richard Basehart from Carrot Top and ten seconds of celebrity guest. There's a line between art and "product", and to paraphrase Potter Stewart, you know it when you see it. When a series slips from art to product, when the most an article can possibly contain is a virtual (not literal) copy-paste of the cast list from the IMDB, a plot summary, and perhaps if somebody's really industrious, a list of themes within this hypothetical episode that were repeated elsewhere in the series (oh, and of course, compulsory mention of any reference, no matter how dubious or gratutious, to other television shows made within the episode), when there is little if any innovation to be found and when a hypothetical in-depth examination of the construction yields no particularly unique insights into the craft - then it's all information that would be better off elsewhere, such as in a fan-made Wiki. I'm no more an "art snob" than someone who CSD A7's Johnny Twoshoes' autobiographical vanity article is a "human snob". The way that the first three seasons of I Love Lucy are presented here is a good example of how this information should ideally be handled. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course - some lesser-known shows can benefit from having the content within each episode highlighted. But plot summary, cast-list, and trivia, ad naseum, for season after season of a series that few people will even remember five years from now? No thanks. --Action Jackson IV 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It doesn't matter how notable the TV series is, it is how well-written the articles are. The Prince of Darkness 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - nonsense. If an article on Action Jackson's Stinky Socks is the most brilliantly crafted article ever to grace Wikipedia, with underlying themes that bring a tear to every reader's eye, it's still G1 Patent Nonsense and not notable. If well-written articles were all we were shooting for, it'd pay to replace the current Adventures of Huckleberry Finn article with the text of the original book. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and the same goes for every other article related to an episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, That's So Raven, Profiler, and any other series foolishly deleted or up for deletion. ---- DanTD 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, and create redirects as proposed. If it can be demonstrated that any particular episode had significant or lasting pop cultural impact, an article can be created for that episode. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD will set precedent for all episodes as mel stated. He is here to get consensus and set a precedent he can use to get rid of all episodes he deems not notable or cruft. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- General question - To anyone that says that these can be improved upon: do you really think any of these could possibly reach the quality of this, this, or anyone of the episode articles here? That argument would be fine if the lower quality Simpsons episode articles were up, but this show is totally different. The good number of GA and FA Simpsons episodes show that those episodes could probably become like that fairly easily. Nothing about these episodes shows that. Their general quality is horrible, and nothing shows that it can be any other way. Nemu 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per User:Action Jackson IV, and per the precedent of the Lucy episodes. Individual episodes which have been written about by reliable independent sources so that legitimate articles are possible satisfying WP:N and WP:A can then be broken out into in separate articles. Lengthy trivia-filled articles about each episode of TV show are non-encyclopedic and often original research. I would like to see a little more plot summary than Action Jackson. There could be a paragraph in the "List" article which gives the events (with spoiler warning) in the episode in more detail than the teasers in TV Guide or the show's website, which is useful to viewers who start a series in midyear and want the "back story" or who miss an episode and want to catch up. Those who want to delve into every frame of a TV show can do so in the discussion at Televisionwithoutpity. I do not see TV.com, the reference cited in the episode articles as meeting WP:A and [[WP:N]. It is a policy decision for Wikipedia to make as to whether an editor's viewing of the original TV episode satisfys [[WP:A]. Edison 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If you check the List of I Love Lucy episodes|I Love Lucy article]], you will find that there are plot summaries throughout. The "list of" is somewhat misleading - picture it as a series of listings from TV Guide, with a concise plot summary and notable guest stars and "trivia" (i.e., mentioning a notable televisual "first", or perhaps a little backstory on scenes of note (the chocolate-eating scene) - not mentioning each and every specific homage in later TV shows or other maniacal horseshit of that nature), just without the self-indulgent bloat of these individual articles. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break 1
- Strong KeepI agree that this would set a bad precident which could jeopardize episode articles for any TV show. If individual articles are bloated, poorly written or poorly sourced, then improve them but don't delete them. Episode articles are appropriate for Wikipedia.JeffStickney 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - as has been said already, there really isn't much room for improvement. Multiple, notable secondary sources do not, for whatever reason, see fit to make mention of Kept Man in their critical overviews/analysis of American television. Hence, the articles stand no hope at becoming anything other than a plot summary, a cast list, maybe a trivia section, and maybe some original research to spice things up. If somewhere down the road an episode gains notability or noterity, then at that point an article can be created. We do not maintain a stub for every newborn baby on the grounds that someday, they may meet notability criteria - episodes of a TV show should follow suit --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Delete these, but not others. This is a children's/early teen series that you would only know if you had/are a child/early teen. Like other minor series, it should have just an episode list, with slightly longer summaries then normal for episode lists. However, this should not apply to other series. Classic series' (such as I Love Lucy) deserve almost every episode to have an article, and an episode list, very briefly summarizing episodes. Currently popular series (such as LOST, Heroes (tv series), Survivor (tv series), etc.) should have articles for the most important episodes, and an episode list.--Ac1983fan 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and this will not set a precedence, as it is a minor series.--Ac1983fan 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Define "minor". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, hmmm.... I'd guess a minor series would be series primarily directed at children and tweens, ones that have only one season, and shows with very little character development.--Ac1983fan 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is a show primarily directed and younger audiences, while Firefly lasted only one season. Are either of those "minor shows"?
As for "very little character development," that is so incredibly subjective that I'm not even going to bother trying to counter it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)- Well, minor isn't something one defines as one thinks about. But still, this is a children's series that very few people who are not/don't have teens/children/newphews & nieces/grandchildren etc. will know about. How are you going to compare it to something like Power Rangers, which nearly every american knows about?--Ac1983fan 19:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just because it's directed towards a younger audience doesn't make a series minor. That's in effect saying it doesn't matter because it's made for a kid. Saying a TV show is minor because its for kids would be the same as saying a school is minor because it's for kids. And for the seasons it's going on its 3rd season and it's characters are developed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't think I'm biased against the series. It is in fact one of my favorite shows to watch, and I am a teenager too. What I'm saying is that it is relatively unknown to a lot of people.--Ac1983fan 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Adam Gilchrist is relatively unknown to a lot of people, but he's still today's Featured Article.
My point in all this is that you're attempting to use highly subjective criteria, ones that are sure to be debated by others. We need crisp and clear criterion, not "well, I don't think people have heard of it, so it must be minor". After all, basically any kid's show in the UK is going to be minor to an American, and vice-versa. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)- Yes, apart from everyone in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and Zimbabwe (all of which seem to be small islands somewhere off the coast of Florida somewhere) nobody's heard of Adam Gilchrist. 124.184.177.117 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- That proposal is the first one to actually make sense. WAVY 10 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, apart from everyone in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and Zimbabwe (all of which seem to be small islands somewhere off the coast of Florida somewhere) nobody's heard of Adam Gilchrist. 124.184.177.117 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Adam Gilchrist is relatively unknown to a lot of people, but he's still today's Featured Article.
- Don't think I'm biased against the series. It is in fact one of my favorite shows to watch, and I am a teenager too. What I'm saying is that it is relatively unknown to a lot of people.--Ac1983fan 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is a show primarily directed and younger audiences, while Firefly lasted only one season. Are either of those "minor shows"?
- Well, hmmm.... I'd guess a minor series would be series primarily directed at children and tweens, ones that have only one season, and shows with very little character development.--Ac1983fan 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Define "minor". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and this will not set a precedence, as it is a minor series.--Ac1983fan 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Articles contain no more than just plot summary. No evidence of sources available to add an acceptable level of real world context. If the redirects have already been reverted once, then preserving the edit history is dangerous. Jay32183 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N requires Multiple, non-trivial sources for articles. Episode guides are trivial sources. If there are any decent sources examining an episode in a factual, scholarly way, then its a keep, if all the sources are episode guides, these fail Notability, one of the Five pillers of Wikipedia. -Mask? 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not particularly fond of the precedent that this sets for television episode articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all. What is this about, anyway? General consensus is that episodes get articles, don't use AfD to try and change that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all. Episode articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. --MZMcBride 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All. All of the That's So Raven episodes were redirected to List of That's So Raven episodes despite them having more than enough info. And now this happening to Zack & Cody, the episodes have alot of info, they should stay. QuasyBoy 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment "It's Useful" is a poor justification for keeping. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge into a list. The only notable episode of TSLOZAC is That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)- Keep. And I don't buy for a second that this won't set a precedent. Cburnett 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all bad faith nomination IMO, a lot of hard work has gone into these. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I have a very strong inclusionist policy and I see no reason to delete these. they are informative and helpful to anyone looking for said information and when you have to go to multiple sources to get the same info, it is nice to have one wikipedia article about an episode; it saves alot of time if i wanted to know more about one episode. Don't give me that bull about other sources being available such as TV.com because we all know the individual episode pages rarely have much information over there and so this is a good all around source. I also agree this will craete a strong precedent for tv episode pages people are working to better. Diemunkiesdie 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Although the article is not the best, deletion would set a Bush. Sorry, I mean a bad precedent. The plot needs condensing, and other sections need adding. However, people chose to keep Scream trilogy because it could be a good article, rather than deleting existing rubbish. On that basis, keep. Clean-up, though, and get rid of trivia sections. Look at The Simpsons articles for some excellent examples of episode pages. The JPStalk to me 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Wikipedia is not world politics. Shocking, I know. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's called humour. Look it up: you'll find it in the same section as humbug. The JPStalk to me 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- That was rather uncalled for. The point is that in world politics, there are precedents (and presidents). Wikipedia has neither. --Action Jackson IV 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's called humour. Look it up: you'll find it in the same section as humbug. The JPStalk to me 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia is not world politics. Shocking, I know. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to say a few things before my vote:
- Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus can change." That is, precedents have no meaning in the long run, should you even manage to set one. This AfD will not lead to all episode articles being arbitrarily deleted, and neither will a keep ruling prevent articles from being put up for deletion later. If you want general consensus on a group of articles, you should seek to get a proper guideline on it instead - go get WP:EPISODE changed if you must.
- WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles: "If the articles contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." People should consider alternatives rather than the black-and-white "episode articles or no episode articles." People should also note that each television series must be taken on a case-by-case basis, as some television episodes have more content and notability than others.
- WP:DELETE#Deletion discussion: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." In short: use dispute resolution.
- I feel the third point is the most important; this shouldn't have been dragged here in the first place. I motion to close this AfD and move discussion to a more proper place. Neither side particularly wanted deletion in the first place and made little effort to talk civilly or get consensus with the editors involved before coming here. Phony Saint 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Obviously, the third point is for situations where editor A wants the article to lean one way, editor B wants the article to lean another way, editor A gets fed up and performs the equivilant of taking his ball and going home - nominating the article for deletion and smugly smirking as he clicks the mouse button. If you had read the deletion summary more carefully, you would see that that is not at all the case. Please assume good faith in the future. --Action Jackson IV 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Were I only to read the initial comments, I would also be joining you and the others in taking sides. However, I also took into consideration the talk pages and user histories of Mel Etitis and Malevious and see that they decided to use an AfD to resolve their problem. Not that I'm questioning that they both are sincerely contributing to articles relating to the Suite Life - but, I do note that they're using AfD inappropriately. Phony Saint 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Obviously, the third point is for situations where editor A wants the article to lean one way, editor B wants the article to lean another way, editor A gets fed up and performs the equivilant of taking his ball and going home - nominating the article for deletion and smugly smirking as he clicks the mouse button. If you had read the deletion summary more carefully, you would see that that is not at all the case. Please assume good faith in the future. --Action Jackson IV 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep-I'll try to look at the reasons offered for this deletion:
- Its a "minor series":subjective criterion. There's no agreed-upon definition of a "minor" series.
- Non-notable:no explanation of why it's so, unless based on the prior subjective criterion.
- Unsourced:the articles offer sources
- Are plot summaries/triva:Something that can be remedied without deletion.
All that said, I'm just not seeing a convincing reason to delete.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:FICT contains a very clear definition of minor. A minor concept does not have enough independant, reliable sources to attain a full article. Since there are zero sources documenting the production and reception, a full article cannot be attained. The only precedent this could possibly set is the one WP:EPISODE tried to be. That is, individual episode articles should not be made until there is enough nontrivial information for the article to stand on its own. There is no subjective measure there at all. Based on those objective criteria, "keep" is a bad option, "delete" is a good option, and "merge/redirect" is a coin toss. Merging should not lead to overbloated plot summaries on the episode list, and redirects should not be restored to articles every few monthes with no new sources coming out. If those two problems can be avoided, then merge is a good option. It may require a bit more intervention than Wikipedia admins are likely to be willing to perform, but it is a possibilty. Jay32183 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I fixed up The Suite Life Goes Hollywood a little bit, to show that it can be done. - Peregrine Fisher 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I hope what I'm about to say isn't taken as a personal attack, or overly belittling. But here are my problems with this supposedly "improved" article: 1) the plot summary is gratutiously overwraught, poorly written and going into more detail than is absolutely necessacary. Perhaps a better-written piece could afford more detail, but this is rather tiresome. 2) While the "commercial" section would be a nice touch in a fan-wiki, it is not particularly notable, and "It's Useful" is not a great argument. 3) While the reception section could be good, neither one of these two (sourced) quotes is very profound. Are semi-advertising blurbs suddenly deserving of encyclopedic merit? (Clarification: We're not debating if the shows were "good" or "bad", just whether there was anything particularly unique about this episode versus other episodes of contemporary shows). It reads a bit more like a press-piece than an encyclopedia article. As it stands, the extra bits which allegedly raise this up in quality seem tacked on, unnatural and arbitrary - and in such a way that I don't think they could be improved even given three years of work. It's a bit of a catch-22, and I hope you understand that I'm not saying this just to be difficult. Even if all the articles in the AfD were at the level of this one, I would still vote the same. --Action Jackson IV 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm not saying it's going to be the greatest article ever. It's a mildly notable episode, not Spiderman 3. It had a good subplot, included some overacting, and had some notable guest stars. Nothing earth shattering, just the start of a good article on a children's show. - Peregrine Fisher 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- But therein lies the crux of the biscuit. Nobody (to my knowledge) is declaring that this television series does not deserve an article of its own. But each individual episode is basically as you described - a subplot, varying degrees of bad acting, and some guest stars. Nothing earth shattering, and nothing that a well-organized table (such as the Lucy table) couldn't accomodate. --Action Jackson IV 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Why not just tag it for a clean-up then? Cleaning up the article and making it decent is better than having it deleted. And by adding info from a few sources it establishes notability by having "multiple independent sources". He showed that sources can be found for episodes if given time. It's much easier to tag an article for clean-up and work on it than it is to delete it and have to start from scratch if an editor wishes to work on it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Because there's nothing that can be done. "Clean up" is not some magical process whereupon reliable secondary sources take it upon themselves to explore new areas of individual episodes of a mildly popular children's TV show, whereupon Wiki authors from across the globe tinker and create a mountain of content from the molehill of an episode. I'm not disputing Peregrine's skills as an editor - which is why I took great pains to clarify that I was not saying "you did an awful job, Peregrine", but rather, "you did the best job that could be done, Peregrine, but the article still isn't worthy of its own page". The sources that can be found will universally be TV listings and Entertainment Weekly esque "new season roundups", and possibly some Disney overviews. Basically, secondary sources that tell us whether we should watch an episode of this show or not. Compare this to, just to take a particularly violent counter-example, Citizen Kane, about which enough has been written to start a Wiki all its own - and these writings are not simply reviews or previews, but actual meat - the real world equivalent of, say, a post-doctorate thesis. I could write a thesis on this film, or, in the realm of television, a paper on the cinematic innovations of the Twilight Zone, or how Columbo narrowed the divide between television show and movie. If I tried to write my thesis on an episode of the Suite Life of Zack & Cody, I'm afraid I'd be laughed out of the professor's office - and that's assuming I could find any sources beyond the bare-bones scraps of television gossip rags. --Action Jackson IV 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why not just tag it for a clean-up then? Cleaning up the article and making it decent is better than having it deleted. And by adding info from a few sources it establishes notability by having "multiple independent sources". He showed that sources can be found for episodes if given time. It's much easier to tag an article for clean-up and work on it than it is to delete it and have to start from scratch if an editor wishes to work on it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This is a ridiculous precedent to set. To say episodes of a mainstream television show are non-notable is not right, and as it's been pointed out, most of the episodes have verifiable sources. Of course they should be worked on, but deleting them is not the solution. If this AfD is an argument against the practicality of individual episode articles in general, I suggest you take a look at Pilot (House) for a featured episode article. We should be striving for featured content, not deletion. -- Wikipedical 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- On that logic I could have an article for myself, and then say "we shouldn't delete this since it's not notable, we should keep it and make it featured". -- Ned Scott 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except these have a chance of becoming featured. Sources can be found as Peregrine Fisher noted. The series itself is notable. One of the things mentioned was the overly detailed plots, instead of deleting it just based on that, why not tag it for a clean up and let an editor fix the problem. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- These articles? No, they have no chance in hell of being featured, lets not kid ourselves. The problem here is people seem to think that it's all or nothing with episode articles. An episode of house being notable enough to have an article and to have that article be featured is one thing, but that doesn't make every episode of every show notable. Realistically speaking, -these episode articles- that this AFD is talking about, are not likely to be worth anything, nor do they really have any salvageable content. At best we merge and hope that eventually the individual episodes get enough to warrant an article, not the other way around. Please don't equivilate all episode articles. -- Ned Scott 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- No chance in hell? How did you work that one out? With enough time and effort these articles can be brought to scratch. Just deleting them seems odd. I have to agree with Wikipedical. Qjuad 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of the likelihood of future film school professors devoting entire classes to the masterwork subtleties and cultural ramifications of an episode of the Suite Life of Zack & Cody, I'd say Ned's argument is still valid. There's a chance that one of us in this AfD will walk away from the computer and, whether by sheer luck or by genius ingenuity, find the cure for cancer. Or, more realistically, end up, several months down the line, becoming instrumental in a site-changing, drastically hip Wikipedia policy of some sort. So should we give each editor in this debate a stub bio for now, tag them as cleanup, and wait for the future to decide our fates? I would hope not. --Action Jackson IV 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- These articles? No, they have no chance in hell of being featured, lets not kid ourselves. The problem here is people seem to think that it's all or nothing with episode articles. An episode of house being notable enough to have an article and to have that article be featured is one thing, but that doesn't make every episode of every show notable. Realistically speaking, -these episode articles- that this AFD is talking about, are not likely to be worth anything, nor do they really have any salvageable content. At best we merge and hope that eventually the individual episodes get enough to warrant an article, not the other way around. Please don't equivilate all episode articles. -- Ned Scott 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except these have a chance of becoming featured. Sources can be found as Peregrine Fisher noted. The series itself is notable. One of the things mentioned was the overly detailed plots, instead of deleting it just based on that, why not tag it for a clean up and let an editor fix the problem. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- On that logic I could have an article for myself, and then say "we shouldn't delete this since it's not notable, we should keep it and make it featured". -- Ned Scott 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. And regarding setting a precedent, there is a difference between an episode of a show which is broadcast in prime time internationally, and an episode of a show that most people have never heard of. -- Chuq (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- One of the citations I added to the above episode says this is one of the top five shows for ages 6 - 11. It's more popular among children than Lost, House, and Heroes are among adults. - Peregrine Fisher
-
- I assume you mean top five shows in terms of audience? While that means the show as a whole is notable, I don't think it has any bearing on whether or not an individual episode of said show is notable enough to require a page of its own. Diet Coke has been the most popular diet soft drink amongst all age groups, but the can I had with dinner doesn't need an article. --Action Jackson IV 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- So, this series is more popular in its target audience than Lost, so are you saying the episode articles for Lost should all be deleted as non-notable? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am saying that these articles can be merged without anything being lost beyond the pride of those who have worked on them. Other articles exist. This AfD is not about those articles. Please do not try to turn this into a global debate. I said earlier, had you been following, that each television series is different, and to assume there's some arbitrary global standard is both an immature assumption to make, and a pedantic idea to hold others to. The episodes of this series do not merit individual articles. The series? Sure, it's notable. Episodes? Not so much. Like I said, Diet Coke is an awful popular drink, but the can I had for dinner doesn't need its own article (though I assure you that it was a mighty fine can). --Action Jackson IV 01:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- High School Musical was one of the most popular films of last year and it's soundtrack was only outsold by Stadium Arcadium. It doesn't mean random songs are notable. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia - it contains many articles that would never be in any encyclopaedia - it's an encyclopaedia of film and television, an encyclopaedia of art history and a whole bunch of other reference books - information that might not be collected elsewhere is so ordered a fashion. If there is a problem with an article about an episode of a any tv show then it should be improved, not deleted, and certainly not speedily deleted Quadparty 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep These pages are not generating significant work loads, as they are not much vandalised. They attract new users. Wikipedia should not exclude people based on their lack of knowledge on scientific subjects. TV series may be one of the only way users can contribute, now, because they did not receive higher education, and all the common articles everyone knows about are already covered in detail, with additions by experts on the subject. It is nice to see anonymous users contributing something else than vandalism. Most articles only have very small contributions by unregistered users (like correcting minor errors), TV series episode articles seem to have a lot of content added by unregistered users in a constructive way. Also perhaps 100 times more people have seen these episodes than have been to my village, but it still has its article, as do many extremely obscure subjects.--Jackaranga 01:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep All - Why do people seem to think Wikipedia is a zero-sum game? It's verifiable and sourced information that someone may one day go looking for. YOU may not, but I won't ever look up Roy Apancho and you don't see me trying to deny the info to others. Sheesh. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep and tidyup. Wikipedia is not WP:PAPER. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be in play here. I would agree that the plot summaries are overlong, and the articles do seem to be short of secondary sources. But given time - this may improve, after all wikipedia wasn't built in a day. Per above the show seems notable. Megapixie 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. As other users have mentioned, if the article for the episodes for this series are deleted, then the same would have to happen to every article about a television episode, which wouldn't make sense. And I might be wrong, but I'm getting the suspicion that the reason these articles are being nominated for deletion at all is because the nominator either doesn't like the way the articles are written or just doesn't like this particular show.
- By the way, I really don't think using WP:USEFUL is a valid argument for deletion because that's an essay, not a guideline. Anthony Rupert 03:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- If that point made any sense, if this ends up as a keep, we will never have to delete another episode article. We aren't setting any sort of precedent with this AfD, though one desperately needs to be set. Episode articles are nominated for various reasons, with the largest being the lack of any reliable sources. Other reasons include little notability past the show or series, and a general lack of information. Nemu 03:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Sourced, reasonably well-developed, clear evidence of enough maintainer interest to keep them from going downhill. I also don't like the idea that things should be deleted because someone deems them 'cruft' or 'minor'. Those aren't arguments, they're characterizations. Every subject is someone's cruft. Even your favorite one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I really shouldn't comment on every single keep, but I must ask: what are you talking about? Only one article out of the whole batch seems to have any sources, which are used poorly. None of them are developed at all. The only have bloated plot summaries and trivia sections, neither of which are anywhere close to well developed. Being minor is a very large concern, and is also a perfectly fine characterization (otherwise WP:N would be useless). Nemu 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:N is pretty useless when it comes to episodes. An episode seen by a million people is more famous than maybe 95% of our articles, and interests people more thatn probably 99% of our articles. Every episode has two important reliable sources; the ep itself, and imdb (and others) for cast information. I think people are too hung up on what they thing an "encyclpedia" is. WP is new type of encylopdedia, and episodes are one of the things that makes it way better than the old type. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- An episode being seen, even with millions of viewers, does not make an individual episode notable. It's TV, and getting millions of people to watch something for a half hour happens so often that it's no longer a definite indication of notability. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The notability guideline says that notability is not determined by fame, but by being the subject of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. It's completely objective. These episodes are not the subject of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Abyssinia, Henry and Cape Feare are. That's the difference. Jay32183 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- An episode being seen, even with millions of viewers, does not make an individual episode notable. It's TV, and getting millions of people to watch something for a half hour happens so often that it's no longer a definite indication of notability. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:N is pretty useless when it comes to episodes. An episode seen by a million people is more famous than maybe 95% of our articles, and interests people more thatn probably 99% of our articles. Every episode has two important reliable sources; the ep itself, and imdb (and others) for cast information. I think people are too hung up on what they thing an "encyclpedia" is. WP is new type of encylopdedia, and episodes are one of the things that makes it way better than the old type. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I really shouldn't comment on every single keep, but I must ask: what are you talking about? Only one article out of the whole batch seems to have any sources, which are used poorly. None of them are developed at all. The only have bloated plot summaries and trivia sections, neither of which are anywhere close to well developed. Being minor is a very large concern, and is also a perfectly fine characterization (otherwise WP:N would be useless). Nemu 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Because I do fear this will set a major precedent (and don't say it won't, we know better), I'd personally like to see these stay, or at the very least be combined into articles by season ("The Suite Life of Zack & Cody season one" or somesuch, more detailed than the current "List of..." article), with brief summaries and other necessary data. And while it isn't a valid argument here, I must also throw "useful" into the mix, as I've genuinely found many episode articles (not these specifically) to be highly useful. my 2¢ -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Supporting keep for fear of the precedent is not necessary. If these articles get deleted, then those articles get deleted. We have individual AfDs for a reason. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It looks the original statement
- "Agreement on this will also have an effect on how we deal with thousands of other trivial, fancrufty articles..."
- was removed from the nomination (and probably should be put back). Still, to say this doesn't effect our general thinking is, I think, incorrect. How many of these AfDs do we go through before we consider what theyre results mean? I think there are two ways to set a precedent. If the episodes from Lost or some other extra notable show gets its episodes deleted, then all less notable episodes should be deleted. If some less notable show like The Suite Life gets its episodes kept, then all more notable episodes should be automatically kept. - Peregrine Fisher 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all. It isn't the notability of the series that determines this, it's the indivdual episode. Each series isn't all or none. The problem isn't that the articles are about individual episodes, or that they come from a particular series. The problem is that sources do not exist to make a fully developed article. There may be sources in the future, but we should wait until then to write the article. Stop worrying about precedent. If people would actually take indivdual discussions in isolation, it wouldn't be a problem. Assess things as they come. The assessment here is that the articles either get deleted, or, if there is actually meaningful content that isn't on the episode list, merge. Jay32183 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ned, of this I am aware, however, I still have a user's right to voice an opinion. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ned also has a right to point out that your opinion is invalid because it is not supported by facts. Saying "I have a right to my opinion" in this situation is the same as saying it after saying you don't vanilla ice cream and Ned asking if you've ever tried it. Opinions not supported by facts are meaningless. Jay32183 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Huntster that a precedent is possibly being set. You say it's unsupported by facts, but one AfD effecting another has happened before. There is nothing invalid about Huntster's opinion, and you shouldn't call their opinion "meaninless." - Peregrine Fisher 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ned also has a right to point out that your opinion is invalid because it is not supported by facts. Saying "I have a right to my opinion" in this situation is the same as saying it after saying you don't vanilla ice cream and Ned asking if you've ever tried it. Opinions not supported by facts are meaningless. Jay32183 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- It looks the original statement
- Keep. The episodes are notable if the show is notable. The show would not exist without its episodes. By analogy, Wikipedia has thousands of articles about villages and small towns which are notable largely to people who live in that country. Anthony Appleyard 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The episodes collectively, as the show, are notable, but are not independently notable, nor do they have enough real world information. Small towns and villages are like season articles, and episode articles are like having articles about each street. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe states and counties are season articles, and towns are episode articles. - Peregrine Fisher 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, the fact that Wikipedia has articles about a country and then small towns doesn't mean that any unit of the parent topic/whatever should get it's own article. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe states and counties are season articles, and towns are episode articles. - Peregrine Fisher 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The episodes collectively, as the show, are notable, but are not independently notable, nor do they have enough real world information. Small towns and villages are like season articles, and episode articles are like having articles about each street. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break 2
- Strong Keep. The Suite Life is a internationally popular show. It is one of the highest rated kid shows, one of the first shows to appear on iTunes, and one of only a handful of disney shows that have gone past the usual policy of cancellation after 65 Episodes. If you delted these, you would have to delete every shows episodes. What about shows only regognised in single countries or states, or small independent films only realeased in 10 cinemas. These articles should be kept, there is always room for improvement. You don't delete an article because it is poorly written or researched- you tag it or fix it up. Also Wikipedia is an article anyone can edit, and some people obviously know or research a lot about TV shows episodes, why can't it have an article for each episode, it obviously interests a lot of people. This all goes for the That's So Raven episodes as well. -- Allied45 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment from Action Jackson IV (quotes from Allied45 in italics, please do not break this comment up, as it'll make for very confusing reading).
- The Suite Life is a internationally popular show. So give the series its own article.
- It is one of the highest rated kid shows, one of the first shows to appear on iTunes, and one of only a handful of disney shows that have gone past the usual policy of cancellation after 65 Episodes. Yet again, all good reasons to include The Suite Life of Zack & Cody in an encyclopedia.
- If you delted these, you would have to delete every shows episodes. Nonsense. AfD works on a case-by-case basis. Just because Action Jackson's Indie Punk Band is deleted for being non-notable doesn't mean that The Strokes will suddenly be deleted. This is touched upon in this essay, which I highly recommend reading.
- What about shows only regognised in single countries or states, or small independent films only realeased in 10 cinemas. Again, a case-by-case basis - but it seems you're arguing against deleting the main Suite Life article, which nobody has any intentions of doing.
- These articles should be kept, there is always room for improvement. You don't delete an article because it is poorly written or researched- you tag it or fix it up. It depends on how the article needs to be improved. For instance, let's say that I'm surfing Wikipedia, and find that there's - inexplicably - no article for Television. So, of course, I create an article, but I don't know much about how they work, so my article reads, "A television is usually a square box. It has like a screen or something, and using technology from the 1950s, it makes moving pictures that move but aren't really movies on the screen. There've been lots of moving pictures that move but aren't movies, usually referred to as television shows". Naturally, this article should be tagged, and hopefully fixed up. But, let's say that I create an article called Action Jackson IV. I'll have you know, I'm really a nobody. Should we tag that article and wait for me to get off my ass and do something that is written about in Newsweek? What happens if I never do anything of note - if all I end up doing is typing lots of words in AfDs? I'm a nice person (just as a given episode of Suite Life is a nice episode), but there's really nothing that truly distinguishes an article on me from an article on most other Wikipedia editors.
- Also Wikipedia is an article anyone can edit, and some people obviously know or research a lot about TV shows episodes, why can't it have an article for each episode, it obviously interests a lot of people. It seems that most people who don't wish to keep these articles are in favor of merging them into one big article (or an article for each season). This would actually make it easier for people to read up on episodes, without having to wade through a bunch of individual pages. Also, see this policy - to quote: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information . . . Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". If and when an episode gains historical significance, or achieves some greater merit than merely being an episode of a TV show a lot of people like to watch, then there's no reason an individual article cannot be created. --Action Jackson IV 07:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Kind of replying to you statements before you moved everything around, but anyways.
- This AfD was specifically created to set some sort of standard for episode articles.
- I can't write a sourced article on Action Jackson's Indie Punk Band, while these articles contain sourced information. An article on Action Jackson IV would have 0 reliable sources, while these pages all have a minimum of 2 reliable sources.
- As far as WP:NOT is concerned, it has parts that allow, and parts that discourage, articles like this. If it forbid these pages, they'd be long gone. This AfD is for making a judgement on that, and it looks like a keep. - Peregrine Fisher 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Merge into Episode List Article Unless certain episodes have some significant cultural impact (like Trapped in the Closet (South Park)), I have to question such articles on Wikipedia. More along such issues like space, and slowly violating multiple policies on Wikipedia. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- These articles do not violate any WP policies in a way that can not be fixed by editing instead of deletion. There's some essay that says space considerations shouldn't be taken into account, either. - Peregrine Fisher 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- So you support Wikipedia being some poor-mans version of fan sites? --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- A sourced encyclopedia for television is what I support. - Peregrine Fisher 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- With the trivia and fancruft. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per....umm...above? c'mon, I don't want to read all that. OK, how about going back to the fundamentals: per Wikipedia:Notability "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."(de-emphasis mine) I'll re-consider if such sources can be presented. I see TV.com is used and is fine as a source (if used appropriately, of course), but if that is all there is then perhaps the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes is all that is needed. --maclean 08:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed up The Suite Life Goes Hollywood, as noted above. It is possible to improve these articles. - Peregrine Fisher 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, right on! However, I just get an "Error:Invalid story key" message at The Hub link, and the "The New York Daily News" one is mis-used (those are not 'Reception' critiques, they are previews of what is on TV that night - the author shows no evidence of having watched those shows before writing that). A question though before I change my vote: What is in this article that could not be displayed in the list? --maclean 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed up The Suite Life Goes Hollywood, as noted above. It is possible to improve these articles. - Peregrine Fisher 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep, all episodes of this show are notable. Everyking 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment why/how? Lankiveil 09:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- For one thing, it's a very popular show among its demographic (not at all "minor"), and every episode is watched by a great many people. For another thing, having episode articles is, as people who actually work on these kind of articles figured out long ago, important to facilitate the growth of content, and there's too much information in these articles already for a merger to be possible without some serious trimming. Everyking 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- They're bloated with plot summary, which WILL receive serious trimming if kept. WP:NOT#IINFO number 7. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- That'll probably be about as successful as this AfD, since there's obviously no consensus to do such a thing. Everyking 09:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- They're bloated with plot summary, which WILL receive serious trimming if kept. WP:NOT#IINFO number 7. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- For one thing, it's a very popular show among its demographic (not at all "minor"), and every episode is watched by a great many people. For another thing, having episode articles is, as people who actually work on these kind of articles figured out long ago, important to facilitate the growth of content, and there's too much information in these articles already for a merger to be possible without some serious trimming. Everyking 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment why/how? Lankiveil 09:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge any information into episode listing, then Delete. No sources provided that I can see, these episodes are not the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a TV fansite, take it to [36] if you want that. Lankiveil 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
- Keep, although wikipedia has good policies against being a container for all information out there, in this case I think deletion/merge is not mandated as the definition "minor series" is a subjective criterion not fitting in this case, and concerning sourcing - there are multiple reliable sources in some of the articles (The Suite Life Goes Hollywood). Still clean-up, add more sources, and get rid of trivia sections. feydey 10:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia has a ton of stuff like this. Honestly, I'm satisfied with just a list of episodes with a synopsis for each episode, but individual articles can be nice... Also, the Suite Life of Zach and Cody isn't as obscure as you're making it out to be. J'onn J'onzz 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or at most, redirect to an article listing all the episodes in SLZC. These are episodes of a nationally-broadcast television series. It's a kids show, so the commentary may be a bit more difficult to find, and if there isn't valid encyclopedic information about some of them, then keep them in the list. I don't expect myself to find out which are which though in the scope of this nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI'm torn on this issue. I like the idea of having episode information, but I think some of this stuff can be excessive at times. WAVY 10 14:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Unless an episode is the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources, I see no reason to have an article on it. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries, or for microtrivia. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Nubula 15:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reason? -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all to allow discussion on the talk page. Mel Etitis was bold to redirect all of the articles. Reverting his actions was appropriate as it lacked consensus. Rather than taking this issue to AfD, the matter ought to be discussed on the article's talk page. Even if the articles are deleted in this AfD, they still need to be recreated as redirects! This is an issue that ought to be discussed on the main article's talk page, rather than being brought to AfD. Also, the nom's claim that the articles are unsourced is partly inaccurate (the source for the article information is in all cases the episode itself and a episode guide website) and mostly irrelevant (the majority of information in the article is easily sourceable via {{cite episode}}). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To all those writing "Keep - add more sources" or "Keep - the articles are reliably sourced", you aren't paying attention to the discussion. Not one of these articles, including the one PeregrineFisher "cleaned-up", have any reliable sources. The sources needed to fix these up do not exist. Sources do not magically appear when you add tags to an article. The fact that sources can't be found is completely objective, so don't act like people are insulting this particular program. And for people talking about precedent, the precedents that can be set are "deleting articles that do not have reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject", which is already a precedent, or "editors can write articles about absolutely anything with concern for verifiable, meaningful content" which would completely destroy all credibility and creditibilty that Wikipedia has. Improving Wikipedia sometimes means removing content, and this is undeniably one of those times. Jay32183 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am one of those, and I strongly resent you claiming I'm "not paying attention". First, every one of these articles has at least one source: the episode itself. Go nominate {{cite episode}} for deletion if that's such a problem. Secondly, they also seem to be citing TV.com. Now, granted, that's not the best source in the world, but its not completely irrelevant in this context, either. In my opinion, these two together constitute sufficient sourcing. You don't need to agree, that's what we have discussion for, but please don't claim I'm "not paying attention" becuase we see things differently.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The episode is a source, but if it is the source, it becomes irrelevant. I don't see TV.com being used as a source; it's only an external link. Even then, it seems to be openly edited by users, so I don't think it could be used at all (correct me if I'm wrong). Nemu 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well, OK, the section is called "external links", fine, but that's pretty common. Footnotes aren't the only method of referencing. As I said, I agree TV.com isn't the best source (although, as I understand it, its based on user submissions with editorial oversight, something of a gray area) nor is the episode itself, but I, at least, believe that the two together are sufficient. That's my opinion, not evidence I'm not paying enough attention to the discussion.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- {{cite episode}} is for sourcing plot elements in articles on works of fiction, but it doesn't reliably source notability. TV.com is almost never a reliable source because it is editted by its users. The articles can't be just plot summary, but they are, and that's all we can source. Compare these articles to Abyssinia, Henry and think about what needs to be done and what can't be done. The overlap may surprise you. Jay32183 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- If that's how you feel, fine. But please don't belittle others who may disagree by claiming they aren't paying attnetion. That's just insulting.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're never going to agree, but citing an episode for the plot, and citing tv.com for cast information is enough. The notability is established by the viewing of the episode by millions of people. These pages just illustrate a flaw in WP:N. - Peregrine Fisher 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, it isn't enough. Citing for the plot is fine, but if you cannot cite anything else, it's pointless. I doubt you can even use tv.com for that as that also seems to be user-edited. Besides that, we don't cite the cast directly in the article, once again nullifying your point. Notability on Wikipedia is defined by RS's and the like; saying there is a flaw in WP:N is just a weak opinion. Nemu 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're never going to agree, but citing an episode for the plot, and citing tv.com for cast information is enough. The notability is established by the viewing of the episode by millions of people. These pages just illustrate a flaw in WP:N. - Peregrine Fisher 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well, OK, the section is called "external links", fine, but that's pretty common. Footnotes aren't the only method of referencing. As I said, I agree TV.com isn't the best source (although, as I understand it, its based on user submissions with editorial oversight, something of a gray area) nor is the episode itself, but I, at least, believe that the two together are sufficient. That's my opinion, not evidence I'm not paying enough attention to the discussion.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The episode is a source, but if it is the source, it becomes irrelevant. I don't see TV.com being used as a source; it's only an external link. Even then, it seems to be openly edited by users, so I don't think it could be used at all (correct me if I'm wrong). Nemu 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am one of those, and I strongly resent you claiming I'm "not paying attention". First, every one of these articles has at least one source: the episode itself. Go nominate {{cite episode}} for deletion if that's such a problem. Secondly, they also seem to be citing TV.com. Now, granted, that's not the best source in the world, but its not completely irrelevant in this context, either. In my opinion, these two together constitute sufficient sourcing. You don't need to agree, that's what we have discussion for, but please don't claim I'm "not paying attention" becuase we see things differently.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment If the episode articles are kept, they need to be thoroughly overhauled. Compare Hotel Inspector to The Crossroads of Destiny. And The Crossroads of Destiny to The Five Doctors. If we can get it to something on the par to The Crossroads of Destiny, that's good. We should aim to get it on a par to Doctor Who episode articles. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually, those episodes are just as bad, if not worse. One is a giant plot summary, and the other is another giant summary with a ton of cutable trivia. We need to aim for sourced info, not cruft. Nemu 20:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- What I mean is we need notes about continuity, production, et cetera. I picked TCOD because it's written better than TSL episodes, and I picked The Five Doctors randomly out of the DW serials I know of. Look at any Doctor Who article for the new series at least, we have sourced information about the things we need. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The lack of the possibility of those sections is the main reason for this AfD. They cannot be sourced, so there is no way to place them. I don't really agree that a giant plot summary is better writing than a large one. Some of the DW episode articles are decently sourced, but they still suffer from giant plot summaries, and a lot of trivial information. They aren't really good examples of what these should be. The current FA episodes are better models. Nemu 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we don't have any episodes on the wiki that are featured articles. But we should aim to get them to Doctor Who episode standard, at least. If we can't get it onto the standard of The Crossroads of Destiny, they shouldn't be on-wiki. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? We have this, this, and three here. Once again, the problem with the episodes is that they cannot reach any level of quality, which is exactly why they should be removed. Nemu 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. Didn't notice that. I was looking at the TV WP. I think the TCOD should the absolute minimum of quality for episode articles (as you'll see, I voted merge). Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? We have this, this, and three here. Once again, the problem with the episodes is that they cannot reach any level of quality, which is exactly why they should be removed. Nemu 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we don't have any episodes on the wiki that are featured articles. But we should aim to get them to Doctor Who episode standard, at least. If we can't get it onto the standard of The Crossroads of Destiny, they shouldn't be on-wiki. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The lack of the possibility of those sections is the main reason for this AfD. They cannot be sourced, so there is no way to place them. I don't really agree that a giant plot summary is better writing than a large one. Some of the DW episode articles are decently sourced, but they still suffer from giant plot summaries, and a lot of trivial information. They aren't really good examples of what these should be. The current FA episodes are better models. Nemu 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- What I mean is we need notes about continuity, production, et cetera. I picked TCOD because it's written better than TSL episodes, and I picked The Five Doctors randomly out of the DW serials I know of. Look at any Doctor Who article for the new series at least, we have sourced information about the things we need. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, those episodes are just as bad, if not worse. One is a giant plot summary, and the other is another giant summary with a ton of cutable trivia. We need to aim for sourced info, not cruft. Nemu 20:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All - and the same for virtually any other single episode of any other TV Series you can mention. I can think of maybe half-a-dozen individual epsiodes that would pass normal rules of notability were they a printed item, so let's start thinning down on them, starting here. - fchd 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Really bad argument. Malc82 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all or Merge to list. A short list, sans plot summaries. Essentially ludicrously detailed plot summaries with some credits pasted onto them. Where are the 3rd-party sources that have somehing to say about the episodes? --Calton | Talk 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep... to answer the questions about "notability", I think that any program on broadcast television in a major country is notable. What are the ratings of this show on the Disney Channel? Probably an order of magnitude lower than the lowest rated program on the four major broadcast networks. Thus, the episodes are non notable. The other question is how the episodes relate to each other. For instance, I Love Lucy was a comedy with episodes that aren't interlinked, unlike 24 which each episode is integral to the understanding of the following episode. Therefore, this can't be used as precedent for anything. Calwatch 04:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment: there are other sources for community driven TV information sites such as tviv and tv wiki, with oodles of tolerance for all cruft. Ultimately, it is probably best if somebody copies all the stuff from Wikipedia and puts it on those sites, because once it's deleted, it's gone for good. Calwatch 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, notability is determined by availability of sources, it is not a judgement call. Jay32183 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Everything beyond the major policies is a judgement call. Look at the subject specific notability pages for examples. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, notability is determined by availability of sources, it is not a judgement call. Jay32183 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- comment: there are other sources for community driven TV information sites such as tviv and tv wiki, with oodles of tolerance for all cruft. Ultimately, it is probably best if somebody copies all the stuff from Wikipedia and puts it on those sites, because once it's deleted, it's gone for good. Calwatch 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Everyking's rationale on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Crikey! Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for plot summaries, which is what this little beauty of an article is! Stewe Erwin, Cruft Hunter 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. See my long rationale here: [37]. Pinball22 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Articles are informative and verifiable, and as part of a notable TV show are themselves notable. --Falcorian (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep and Comment I wrote a message on this showing my support for these pages to be kept and it was deleted, I ask you not to delete these comments to twist the conversation in your favour, I'm very dissipointed.--Wiggstar69 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - What are you talking about? According to your contributions, you've never said anything here before. Phony Saint 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then that means that has been edited too, a bit sad if you ask me.--Wiggstar69 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, that can't be edited; it just isn't possible. I'm guess that you got caught in an edit conflict, which happens sometimes and in no way reflects anyone's attitude towards this article or your comments. Please assume good faith. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then that means that has been edited too, a bit sad if you ask me.--Wiggstar69 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - What are you talking about? According to your contributions, you've never said anything here before. Phony Saint 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All and merge/redirect any relevant info to episode list. Per WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT, articles shouldn't be nothing more than a plot summary. And while the episode itself may be used as a source, we shouldn't have articles using just primary sources or just one source. If secondary sources can't be found to add info beyond plot summaries, these would be better covered in an episode list with a brief plot summary and any other relevant info. --Minderbinder 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The cast and crew information is not plot summary, and is independantly sourced. - Peregrine Fisher 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, they aren't sourced anywhere in the articles, and they aren't independently important. They're fine in episode articles, but they don't qualify as sourced information unless integrated into a development section. Basically, they only are mentioned if the episode needs an article, otherwise they're just left out. Nemu 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cast and crew detail isn't enough content to justify a separate article, as it can be contained in the episode list without disrupting the focus of that article. What the articles need are detailed information on the development and reception. To do that you would need interviews with the production team, and articles, not blurbs, from television critics. Until you find those, there is nothing supporting your argument. Saying "Keep" and assuming there are sources is counterproductive to Wikipedia's goal of being a verifiable encyclopedia. Jay32183 19:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cast and crew info is all available from watching the show - to have a separate article there should be info that comes from a secondary source (not info from the primary source repeated by a secondary source). From NOT: this can include "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" I see none of that here. --Minderbinder 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Air dates and production codes are independant of the show. To say small reviews ("blurbs") are not important is an opinion we obviously don't agree on. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- And where do they easily fit? The episode list? Small reviews don't really say anything for children's shows besides "Oh, that's cute" or "It's fun for the family", so it's sort of hard to count them as anything. Besides, only certain episodes even get that much. Nemu 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "blurbs" since the articles don't seem to contain them, and I haven't commented on them. If the only sourced independent info is a production code, that's not much reason to have a separate article - those could easily go in an episode list as well. --Minderbinder 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I added some refs to The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. Basically that it had a good subplot, included some overacting, and had some notable guest stars. It's discusssed above. - Peregrine Fisher 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- How do those qualify as good sources? You have two "reviews" calling it cute, and some non-notable ratings from one day. The reviews are about as notable as local newpaper reviews, and the ratings are only included if they're notable or relevant, not just because. Even then, that is only for that episode. I doubt you could find any of that material for more than ten of them. Nemu 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I feel that they are good sources. Non of your arguments so far have changed my mind. Local newspaper reviews are fine. First it's that no information exists, then it's the information that exists isn't good enough. Sounds like you just don't like these articles. The info isn't easy to find, but we'll never know how many of the eps have that kind of info if the pages are deleted. It's possible to improve them, so they should stay. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- How do those qualify as good sources? You have two "reviews" calling it cute, and some non-notable ratings from one day. The reviews are about as notable as local newpaper reviews, and the ratings are only included if they're notable or relevant, not just because. Even then, that is only for that episode. I doubt you could find any of that material for more than ten of them. Nemu 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I added some refs to The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. Basically that it had a good subplot, included some overacting, and had some notable guest stars. It's discusssed above. - Peregrine Fisher 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "blurbs" since the articles don't seem to contain them, and I haven't commented on them. If the only sourced independent info is a production code, that's not much reason to have a separate article - those could easily go in an episode list as well. --Minderbinder 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- And where do they easily fit? The episode list? Small reviews don't really say anything for children's shows besides "Oh, that's cute" or "It's fun for the family", so it's sort of hard to count them as anything. Besides, only certain episodes even get that much. Nemu 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Air dates and production codes are independant of the show. To say small reviews ("blurbs") are not important is an opinion we obviously don't agree on. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cast and crew info is all available from watching the show - to have a separate article there should be info that comes from a secondary source (not info from the primary source repeated by a secondary source). From NOT: this can include "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" I see none of that here. --Minderbinder 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cast and crew detail isn't enough content to justify a separate article, as it can be contained in the episode list without disrupting the focus of that article. What the articles need are detailed information on the development and reception. To do that you would need interviews with the production team, and articles, not blurbs, from television critics. Until you find those, there is nothing supporting your argument. Saying "Keep" and assuming there are sources is counterproductive to Wikipedia's goal of being a verifiable encyclopedia. Jay32183 19:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Only a plot summary? Tell that to all the users that contributed to The Simpsons episodes. Anthony Rupert 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- He's commenting on THIS AfD. Focus, people, focus. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Only a plot summary? Tell that to all the users that contributed to The Simpsons episodes. Anthony Rupert 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Even if this stuff isn't sourced right now, it certainly COULD be (and eventually will be), and in the meantime the current state of things isn't really hurting anything. No need to discard a bunch of good content in what seems to amount to a fit of pique. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you get that idea? Have you read any of this discussion? That is the largest reason for this. So far, the only sources (in only one out of all of the articles) are poor at best, and nothing shows otherwise. It can't be solved using blanket statements like that. Nemu 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because slow improvement is what happens on wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nemu: I suggest you check out WP:STUB. Night, Matthew 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a stub and an article without content. All of your arguments have been "they can be improved" while nothing has shown that they can improve. There is a difference between Disturbia, a relatively new film that suffers from the same problem as these articles (pretty much only a plot summary and some trivia), and Big Hair & Baseball. As a movie, Disturbia will more than likely improve in the future. There are various reviews, articles, and primary sources that are/will be available. Big Hair & Baseball, on the other hand, has only shown that its only reference is itself, which is not good enough to warrant the article. You cannot say that "it will likely improve" when nothing shows that. Nemu 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- STUB doesn't talk about article deletion or merging at all. But Wikipedia:Deletion policy says "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list." That seems to be the case here since nobody has been able to find info that would allow these to be expanded. --Minderbinder 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- He's probably referring to the "stubs are allowed" part while ignoring the "these cannot be improved" part of this argument. Nemu 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- If these pages were merged into season pages, I pretty much guarantee we could find a lot of references for each. Merging to the LOE is not acceptable, because the cast and crew information will be lost. The LOE plot summaries also don't contain much of the relevant info from the ep's plot summaries. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. Why couldn't any relevant cast and crew be merged to the LOE? --Minderbinder 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because it won't fit in the table. See Smallville (season 1) for an example of a season page. - Peregrine Fisher 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- So make a better table if that's what's needed. --Minderbinder 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- 65 episodes won't fit on one page. The standard way is with season pages, or episode pages. - Peregrine Fisher 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're acting as if all of that information is needed. The air date and the plot is all that needs to be singled out for those Smallville episodes. You don't need to single out writers or directors most of the time, and the cast can just be mentioned next to the characters name on the summary. Music is just cruft. Nemu 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously I disagree. All of that information is important. - Peregrine Fisher 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of it is important if you can't provide sourced analysis. Until you can do that, you have nothing to say. The choices are delete or provide sourced analysis. No one saying "keep" has provided anything close to analysis. These can never be real articles, accept that. Jay32183 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- We disagree, don't take it so personally. - Peregrine Fisher 02:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of it is important if you can't provide sourced analysis. Until you can do that, you have nothing to say. The choices are delete or provide sourced analysis. No one saying "keep" has provided anything close to analysis. These can never be real articles, accept that. Jay32183 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously I disagree. All of that information is important. - Peregrine Fisher 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're acting as if all of that information is needed. The air date and the plot is all that needs to be singled out for those Smallville episodes. You don't need to single out writers or directors most of the time, and the cast can just be mentioned next to the characters name on the summary. Music is just cruft. Nemu 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- 65 episodes won't fit on one page. The standard way is with season pages, or episode pages. - Peregrine Fisher 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- So make a better table if that's what's needed. --Minderbinder 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because it won't fit in the table. See Smallville (season 1) for an example of a season page. - Peregrine Fisher 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. Why couldn't any relevant cast and crew be merged to the LOE? --Minderbinder 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- STUB doesn't talk about article deletion or merging at all. But Wikipedia:Deletion policy says "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list." That seems to be the case here since nobody has been able to find info that would allow these to be expanded. --Minderbinder 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a stub and an article without content. All of your arguments have been "they can be improved" while nothing has shown that they can improve. There is a difference between Disturbia, a relatively new film that suffers from the same problem as these articles (pretty much only a plot summary and some trivia), and Big Hair & Baseball. As a movie, Disturbia will more than likely improve in the future. There are various reviews, articles, and primary sources that are/will be available. Big Hair & Baseball, on the other hand, has only shown that its only reference is itself, which is not good enough to warrant the article. You cannot say that "it will likely improve" when nothing shows that. Nemu 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nemu: I suggest you check out WP:STUB. Night, Matthew 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because slow improvement is what happens on wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break 3
- Comment This is one long discussion. I sincerely wish the admin closing this the best of luck. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unless the admin really goes out on a limb, and decides not to just vote count, there is a pretty clear consensus to keep (unfortunately). Nemu 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that there's no consensus either way. I'd prefer a concensus to delete, of course, but there are enough people voting delete that it's basically gridlocked. Of course, with the way that AfD is set up, that's as good as a Keep. Lankiveil 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
- Some people find it shocking, but there's been a consensus for months. Here's a list of episode AfDs that I've participated in lately. With a little bit of commentary on the results.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey La, Hey La, My Ex-Boyfriend's Back - withdrawn, notability established
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OH!? Please ♥ Mister Postman - merge was already in process; result no consensus
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles - 50 or so episodes kept
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall's Reform - resulted in some redirects, and some kept as episode pages. Should have been a mass nomination.
- Dojo, Oh No!/ Finding Hershel - keep
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode) - keep
- The Patient - keep
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All The Time In The World (Alias episode) - keep
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball episodes - keep
- Ones that I didn't participate in probably had more mixed results. - Peregrine Fisher 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- And why are they kept? Because it's a vote. People just cite WP:EPISODE as if it says all articles stay, instead of saying merge/redirect if the information cannot be provided. All other reasons are just for principal, or people that want to keep everything, which isn't a good reason. Plus, most of those have less than ten votes. Nemu
- Because there certainly is no consensus to delete. This one is a better precedent, what with 60 or so keeps/deletes/merges. - Peregrine Fisher 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- And why are they kept? Because it's a vote. People just cite WP:EPISODE as if it says all articles stay, instead of saying merge/redirect if the information cannot be provided. All other reasons are just for principal, or people that want to keep everything, which isn't a good reason. Plus, most of those have less than ten votes. Nemu
-
-
-
- I don't see that as a consensus, I see that as a flaw in our AfD system. Many of the AfDs get flooded with flawed arguments and then have closing admin that don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers. Look how many people are wanting to keep not based on the articles themselves. AfDs on episode articles are headaches, and most of the discussions themselves get off track. People react emotionally, blindly, and simply because enough of them do that we have the situation we have now. Not to mention having Wikipedians go around telling other people that if they don't vote keep, the big bad deletionists will come after them too. This is exactly why AfDs are not supposed to be a vote. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see it as a flaw in our guidelines, not AfD. This page has more comments than some of the big guideline discussions. It's the guidelines that don't totally reflect consensus. - Peregrine Fisher 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is a consensus to delete. Not one of the keeps has said anything to show that the articles can be well sourced articles that provide more than just plot summary and trivia. The closing admin shouldn't care that they're telling a majority that they are wrong. Saying "aww, come on" does not overturn a consensus. This isn't a difference of opinion either. All of the keeps are factually wrong. Jay32183 02:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I well sourced The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. This makes every "keep and improve" factually accurate. - Peregrine Fisher 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see only plot summary and trivia. Even the reception isn't notable considering it's what you would expect for any given episode of the show. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you liked it, you would have been a keep. - Peregrine Fisher 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- What? I'm a huge fan of Lost and I've supported delete on episode articles there. I'm a big Digimon nerd (I'm 24, if you're wondering), and yet I pushed for a mass-article merge of every single Digimon article that is nearing completion (and STILL needs major cruft clean up and merges/deletes). I've cut cruft from my favorite shows and supported deletion of trivial articles about them all the time. This, in no freaking way, has anything to do with what I like or don't like, and I take offense to the suggestion that I would have supported keep had I liked the show, as if I were some shallow deletionist. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I was unclear. I just meant you aren't a fan of keeping and improving, at least not as far as my improvements to "Goes Hollywood" are concerned. I know that you and I "vote" based on prinicipal, not on which particular show. - Peregrine Fisher 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oooh, ok. Sorry about that, then. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Are you telling Ned what he does and doesn't like? Would I also be a keep if I liked this series? Do I need to remind you that I used the exact same reasoning in the Xiaolin Showdown discussion and I admitted to being a fan of that series? Jay32183 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about this show. I'm talking about keeping and improving all episode articles. - Peregrine Fisher 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- And what does that have to do with this AfD? Phony Saint 03:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about this show. I'm talking about keeping and improving all episode articles. - Peregrine Fisher 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- One wonders why we have deletion discussions at all, if they're meant to be completely disregarded...--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you liked it, you would have been a keep. - Peregrine Fisher 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see only plot summary and trivia. Even the reception isn't notable considering it's what you would expect for any given episode of the show. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see it as a flaw in our guidelines, not AfD. This page has more comments than some of the big guideline discussions. It's the guidelines that don't totally reflect consensus. - Peregrine Fisher 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Moving back to Peregrine Fisher's statement that "the consense is clearly keep" - I think it bears mentioning that while there certainly are more "keeps" than "deletes" and "merges" combined, I don't believe that sheer numbers should override policy to this degree (though trust me, I'm not a die-hard policy junkie or anything). "Consensus", to me, implies that there's a compelling reason beyond sheer numbers - and I'm not seeing that here. A good portion of these "keep" comments are the same basic argument - either 1) "WP:ILIKEIT" (in a nutshell) or 2) "these are very notable episodes because the TV show is notable and they have been seen by a lot of people". Neither of these two statements is what I would consider a compelling argument. I have yet to see my question answered - probably lost in the discussion here - so I'll ask it again in a different way: how is any given article of this series any different from my making an article about Diet Coke 204 of Action Jackson IV's 2006 Diet Coke Drinking Binge, The lightbulb in the local Wal-Mart's back room, or this sparrow Action Jackson IV saw in his front yard yesterday? Diet Coke, lightbulbs, and sparrows all have notability. Some individual lightbulbs (like the one in the firehouse that's been working since 1906) have notability. Does this mean all light-bulbs automatically deserve an article of their own? I'm coming off as slightly antagonistic, but trust me, it's just the Diet Coke talking - I really do want to see more of the "why" behind these keep votes. --Action Jackson IV 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say (with no offense intended) that's a rather flawed analogy. For one thing, its a problem of numbers. There are millions of cans of Diet Coke in the world. Also, there's nothing unique about a single can of soda: one is the same as another. Not so with episodes of a tv series like this one. Now then, what I think is at the crux of the matter, is just how far a plot summary can go. WP:FICT uses the term "reasonably short", which obviously calls for for some judgment to be applied, which will, in turn, sometimes lead to differences of opinion. It (WP:FICT) further states that sub-articles ought to be made when "encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article". Now, in my opinion (and, I think, the opinion of many of those say keep) providing encyclopedic coverage in this case does, indeed, call for sub-articles. They could be made into a list, true, but, in my judgment, a list providing encyclopedic coverage of each episode would be too long to be useful or practical. Obviously, some editors will disagree: that's why we have discussions. A judgment call is called for here, and we're finding out what the consensus is.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that as a consensus, I see that as a flaw in our AfD system. Many of the AfDs get flooded with flawed arguments and then have closing admin that don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers. Look how many people are wanting to keep not based on the articles themselves. AfDs on episode articles are headaches, and most of the discussions themselves get off track. People react emotionally, blindly, and simply because enough of them do that we have the situation we have now. Not to mention having Wikipedians go around telling other people that if they don't vote keep, the big bad deletionists will come after them too. This is exactly why AfDs are not supposed to be a vote. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Fyre has it right. If you have a million viewers, spending 1/2 hour of their lives watching a show, then that's 500,000 of what I'll call media hours. In my opinion, 500,000 media hours per episode is enough notability to warrant not only a show page, and a list of episodes, but individual pages for each episode. Per Wikipedia:Summary style if you must. If all we can find to add are short reviews, standard ones that local papers write about lots of episodes, that's fine. Wikipedia is a television encyclopedia as well as an everything else encyclopedia, and episode pages are pretty much part of our mandate. - Peregrine Fisher 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Once again, that isn't how notability is defined here. Madness Combat is a Flash series viewed millions of times all over the internet which easily earns it "500,000 media hours" by this point. It was still deleted, showing that your perception of WP:N being flawed not a common or accepted one. Obviously the internet notability guideline is a little different than the rest, but if it followed your "number of views = important" thought, the AfD would have been different. The closing admin even decided to delete it even though the keeps outnumbered the deletes because it failed to meet the guideline; hopefully that will be the case here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why do you still continue to call your improvements to that one episode good? You have be shown by various people that it does nothing for your case. Reliable articles aren't built from minor reviews that are less than a paragraph. Nothing else has even shown that the same material can be found for the rest (that's a special episode isn't it?). You drone on these small points, and you never back them up. Nemu 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 1) Something called Madness Combat was watched for over 500,000 person hours? That sounds like something notable, or else the hours weren't added correctly. Were those hours repeated for 65 different versions of it? Something like 30,000,000 person hours? I know that's too much, but if you can show me a ref that says that Madness Combat was watched for over 500,000 person hours, I will create an AfD proof page for it.
- 2) I think those improvements are good. Are you aware that opinions can differ? I'm not trying to complete these 65 pages myself, I just wanted to improve one to show it can be done. I'd improve another one if I thought the delete voters would care, but I don't think they would. - Peregrine Fisher 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment - someone attempted to add a keep to Talk:Kept Man. I pointed them to this page, and they blanked that page. - Peregrine Fisher 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All, the argument behind pretty much all of these Keep votes is WP:ILIKEIT, which is no real argument at all. Notability not demonstrated, these articles are not the subject of multiple non-trivial works, etc etc. MichelleG 12:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
- Com - eh, Keep. These are, or can reasonably considered to be, subarticles, kept separate for better coverage. If (say) the "Schlock Mercenary" article got too big, and I split off "Characters of Schlock Mercenary," would I need multiple RS for the characters as well? (Honest question.) --Kizor 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - What would/should happen if (and this looks likely because the result looks like a deadlocked vote) the episode articles were kept? WAVY 10 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- But this isn't a vote, it's a discussion giving for and against arguments for the deletion of this article. Since the "against" arguments have no real substance, deletion is the correct outcome, at least according to policy. If the article is kept, it's yet another precedent to allow TVcruft to continue expanding exponentially on Wikipedia. MichelleG 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
- Not only is this not a vote, but the closing admin needs to be especially careful in closing not to go by raw numbers since there has been a ton of canvassing with a pro "keep" slant. I'm not surprised there's more quantity "voting" that position, although with no policy to support it. --Minderbinder 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The relevant guidelines, WP:N and WP:EPISODE, support merging them. However, the initial two editors working on the episode articles couldn't agree on whether or not to merge them, so they ended up here. Phony Saint 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Read my (long) discussion of this at ANI [38] for what I think is a keep argument with substance. (Quick summary: Episode articles always have at least one source, the episode itself; series or season pages are sufficient for some shows, but for popular shows, episode pages prevent overly long, difficult to read, and constantly edit-warred-over season or series pages; the benefits for readers that episode pages provide outweigh the concern about limited sources in this case.) Pinball22 13:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Popularity has no direct relationship with episode articles; what matters is what "reliable, third-party published sources" have written about them (and in this case, little has been written about a typical Disney Channel comedy.) Edit wars don't qualify as an appropriate reason unless there is some previous consensus for the series in question that there were problems and that was the necessary thing to do. Phony Saint 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it does have a relationship with episode articles, in the sense that more popular shows will attract more attention and get more information added about them. I'm not saying that these are reasons that all shows should have episode articles, or that edit wars would be a problem for every show. I'm saying that shows should start out with a series page, which should then be broken out into season pages and then episode pages as people contribute information, and that plot summaries written by watching the episodes in question are a valid type of information gathered (appropriately according to WP:RS) from a primary source. Pinball22 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- People edit war over cult followings and less popular TV shows too; people edit war over anything and everything. Nothing says that using primary sources is inherently bad; however, there are WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, and WP:EPISODE#Content, which emphasize short summaries. Phony Saint 14:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it does have a relationship with episode articles, in the sense that more popular shows will attract more attention and get more information added about them. I'm not saying that these are reasons that all shows should have episode articles, or that edit wars would be a problem for every show. I'm saying that shows should start out with a series page, which should then be broken out into season pages and then episode pages as people contribute information, and that plot summaries written by watching the episodes in question are a valid type of information gathered (appropriately according to WP:RS) from a primary source. Pinball22 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Popularity has no direct relationship with episode articles; what matters is what "reliable, third-party published sources" have written about them (and in this case, little has been written about a typical Disney Channel comedy.) Edit wars don't qualify as an appropriate reason unless there is some previous consensus for the series in question that there were problems and that was the necessary thing to do. Phony Saint 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Read my (long) discussion of this at ANI [38] for what I think is a keep argument with substance. (Quick summary: Episode articles always have at least one source, the episode itself; series or season pages are sufficient for some shows, but for popular shows, episode pages prevent overly long, difficult to read, and constantly edit-warred-over season or series pages; the benefits for readers that episode pages provide outweigh the concern about limited sources in this case.) Pinball22 13:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The relevant guidelines, WP:N and WP:EPISODE, support merging them. However, the initial two editors working on the episode articles couldn't agree on whether or not to merge them, so they ended up here. Phony Saint 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I hope we are so fortunate as to have TV "cruft" expanding exponentially on Wikipedia, Michelle. Information is a good thing, it's what we're here for. It would be completely outrageous for this to be closed as delete or merge when the delete and merge votes together are heavily outnumbered by the keep votes, and I am confident the closing admin would not do such a thing. Actually, we're bordering on a consensus to keep. Everyking 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since this is not a vote, factors like "outnumbered" are completely irrelevant. --Minderbinder 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I consider it a vote, but even if you don't, surely you can acknowledge my point. Consensus to delete cannot possibly exist when a majority are in favor of keeping it. Numbers have to matter on some level, or the concept of consensus can't even be applied. Everyking 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- You consider wrong. And consensus can absolutely exist when a majority want something but aren't supported by policy. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus. "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." "Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision. Judgment and discretion are essential to determine the correct action, and in all cases, the discussion itself is more important than the statistics." --Minderbinder 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are talking about vote counting, not consensus. A consensus cannot exist when a majority of people disagree with the decision. If someone were to pull this "the majority's viewpoint isn't compatible with policy" stuff, they still couldn't claim the minority's viewpoint was a consensus. Everyking 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- When the majority does not have the knowledge to properly participate in a discusiion, the minority can achive consensus by ignoring them. Jay32183 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's preposterous to claim the majority isn't informed. Are you telling me I don't have the knowledge to participate in this discussion? It's also, needless to say, preposterous to say consensus can be achieved by ignoring everybody who disagrees with you. Everyking 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a difference of opinion. You are factually wrong. Opinion doesn't play at all. You have no evidence to support the claims you are making. The fact that you continue to make those claims shows, at best, that you are uninformed. It's find the sources or the articles get deleted, no opinions necessary. When it's objective like that, no one's opinion matters. If team A scores 5 points and team B scores 4, then team A wins. It doesn't matter that you think team B played better, or that you think team A got lucky. Jay32183 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- What claims have I made that you think are factually wrong? My arguments were that the show is quite notable and that individual episode articles give more room for content and facilitate further expansion. I feel that you are wrong about the sourcing issue because the show itself easily meets notability criteria, and the episode articles merely constitute spin-offs of a higher level of detail, in which case having only one source for those articles (the episodes themselves) is fine. Multiple independent sources are necessary to assert the notability of a basic topic, but not necessarily to assert the notability of specific elements within that topic. In this case, since these individual episodes are seen by millions of people, we have no rational reason to consider them non-notable elements of the topic. Additionally, I am sure some of the episodes have received some degree of coverage in magazines, for example "Odd Couples", in which Ashley Tisdale's character kisses Zac Efron's character, so in that case do you want to keep an episode like that and delete the others? Everyking 03:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Notablitlity for a stand alone article is determined by multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject, so these articles all fail the notability requirement. It doesn't matter how notable you feel they are, there aren't sources to back it up. If you find sufficient sources for one the rest should be deleted, but you must find the sources first. No sources means everything you say is completely meaningless. Since plot summaries are supposed to be small, you can't expnad plot summaries to claim there is too much content. The arguments from the keeps have been I like it, useful, not harmful, inherited notability, interesting, lots of viewers, and let's not lose content. Jay32183 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Everyking, you are factually wrong. Consensus can be a minority when the majority isn't supported by policy - all "votes" without a valid reason should be ignored by the closing admin, particularly in a case like this that had extensive canvassing. --Minderbinder 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Will people please stop using essays as justifiable arguments? Guidelines would be valid here, but these are essays. As I said before, it appears that this all started due to one series' episode articles that follows the same guidelines that most (if not all) of the other series' articles follow, and it seems that that was only brought up because the user doesn't like the show or something. I don't watch that show either (I don't dislike it; I just don't watch it), but if an article on Wikipedia doesn't hold my interest, I don't read it; simple as that. Anthony Rupert 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ATA (all of those links up there) isn't being used as an argument. It is being used to show why the various keep arguments are trash. The actual arguments to delete come from WP:EPISODE, WP:N, and WP:RS (and possibly more that I'm forgetting), not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nemu 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Will people please stop using essays as justifiable arguments? Guidelines would be valid here, but these are essays. As I said before, it appears that this all started due to one series' episode articles that follows the same guidelines that most (if not all) of the other series' articles follow, and it seems that that was only brought up because the user doesn't like the show or something. I don't watch that show either (I don't dislike it; I just don't watch it), but if an article on Wikipedia doesn't hold my interest, I don't read it; simple as that. Anthony Rupert 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Everyking, you are factually wrong. Consensus can be a minority when the majority isn't supported by policy - all "votes" without a valid reason should be ignored by the closing admin, particularly in a case like this that had extensive canvassing. --Minderbinder 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Notablitlity for a stand alone article is determined by multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject, so these articles all fail the notability requirement. It doesn't matter how notable you feel they are, there aren't sources to back it up. If you find sufficient sources for one the rest should be deleted, but you must find the sources first. No sources means everything you say is completely meaningless. Since plot summaries are supposed to be small, you can't expnad plot summaries to claim there is too much content. The arguments from the keeps have been I like it, useful, not harmful, inherited notability, interesting, lots of viewers, and let's not lose content. Jay32183 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's preposterous to claim the majority isn't informed. Are you telling me I don't have the knowledge to participate in this discussion? It's also, needless to say, preposterous to say consensus can be achieved by ignoring everybody who disagrees with you. Everyking 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- When the majority does not have the knowledge to properly participate in a discusiion, the minority can achive consensus by ignoring them. Jay32183 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are talking about vote counting, not consensus. A consensus cannot exist when a majority of people disagree with the decision. If someone were to pull this "the majority's viewpoint isn't compatible with policy" stuff, they still couldn't claim the minority's viewpoint was a consensus. Everyking 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- You consider wrong. And consensus can absolutely exist when a majority want something but aren't supported by policy. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus. "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." "Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision. Judgment and discretion are essential to determine the correct action, and in all cases, the discussion itself is more important than the statistics." --Minderbinder 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I consider it a vote, but even if you don't, surely you can acknowledge my point. Consensus to delete cannot possibly exist when a majority are in favor of keeping it. Numbers have to matter on some level, or the concept of consensus can't even be applied. Everyking 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since this is not a vote, factors like "outnumbered" are completely irrelevant. --Minderbinder 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not only is this not a vote, but the closing admin needs to be especially careful in closing not to go by raw numbers since there has been a ton of canvassing with a pro "keep" slant. I'm not surprised there's more quantity "voting" that position, although with no policy to support it. --Minderbinder 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- But this isn't a vote, it's a discussion giving for and against arguments for the deletion of this article. Since the "against" arguments have no real substance, deletion is the correct outcome, at least according to policy. If the article is kept, it's yet another precedent to allow TVcruft to continue expanding exponentially on Wikipedia. MichelleG 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
- Comment-May I make a humble suggestion? Let's try to keep the discussion to the points at hand, and leave the (unenviable, I think) task of measuring consensus to the closing admin when the time comes.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Based on a random sampling of these pages, I see the following flaws:
- Lack of "multiple independent non-trivial third-party sources" as required by WP:N
- Absence of "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" as required by WP:FICT. The small amount of such context that is included is unsourced (e.g. asserting that one episode is the favourite of one of the actors)
- Much of the "trivia" sections is pure listcruft, e.g. counting how many appearances recurring characters have had up to and including the episode in question. I don't believe these problems could be easily rectified. JulesH 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per opinions Lizzie Harrison 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- What does this mean? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Whie many people like this show, we have to deal with the question of "IS each episode notable?" In this situation, I have to vote no. However, in drama shows where each episode ACTUALLY HAS AN EFFECT on the next episodes, such as Heroes, Daytime Soaps, Lost, ect.. I would more then likely vote keep in said instances. But since this comedy show has almost no plot and nearly every episode could be watched out of order and the difference wouldn't be noticed, I shall vote delete. The Placebo Effect 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that not every episode of a sitcom is notable, but when did every episode of a drama become automatically notable. Your reasoning is that it is because the episodes tie together, which is true of soaps and more recent dramas like 24, but what about older dramas like Bonanza or more recently MacGyver? And how would, for a sitcom, one determine notability/signifigance for an episode? WAVY 10 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Notbility is always estblished by multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. Drama episodes are not automatically notable just because there's a running story line. Jay32183 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- My reasoning was for shows where they tie together, dramas was just a better example. The Placebo Effect 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. If an IMdb entry indicates notability, then such a show is also "notable".Jewishprincess 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC) — Jewishprincess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- An IMDb entry does not indicate notability. Jay32183 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't about the show, It's about individual episodes. The Placebo Effect 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break 4
Number 4 is considered unlucky by the Japanese and Chinese due to the fact it sounds like death. Which I will that this debate does soon. Motion to close deletion nomination already!!--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep First of all, if we say this isn't setting a precendent, every other episode AfD will doubtlessly become an end- and pointless debate of wether that particular series is notable enough. Second, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Since obviously there are enough viewers and contributors to create and read these episode articles, they should just stay. Really, who does it hurt? Malc82 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about the series at all. It's that these article do not have multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. I can't believe you actually presented that argument after it was explained that "lots of viewers" and "who does it hurt?" were shown not to be valid arguments because they aren't based in policy or guideline. The precedent you're afraid of setting can't happen because the grounds for deletion isn't "This is an individual episode". Jay32183 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's be frank here, its hard and oftenly impossible to meet WP's notability guideline (or your interpretation of it) for something rather trivial like a tv episode of pretty much any series. Also keep in mind that notable secondary sources (pop-culture research etc.) usually take some time, while the episode recap should be provided shortly after it's first airing. On the other hand, thousands of contributors spend tens of thousands of hours on episode and tv character articles (btw, I contributed about 10 words overall on tv episode articles, so I'm not one of them). Some of these contributors are also improving the more scientific parts of WP, many might become valuable wikipedians in the future. Since articles about tv shows are on average well-written and a useful resource, I think we shouldn't be too strict in judging them. Deletion seriously discourages every editor of these articles from ever contributing to WP again, and will harm WP much more than risking some more "Jimbo's Bag O'Trivia" allegations, which won't stop anyway. The WP-guidelines cited are not written in stone and I think we shouldn't hold episode articles to the same high notability standards that we (rightfully) demand for a controversial political concept or a biography. Malc82 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is basically WP:NOHARM, which Jay just posted. There are close to two million articles on this site with millions more being possible. If a person can only become a good editor by working on episode articles, something is wrong. And most episode articles are not well written; they are either bloated with plot summaries and trivia, or they're stubs. The only decent articles I can think of are Simpsons episodes, and the Dr. Who serials, which still are a far cry from being that good (besides some specific ones). Currently, most episode articles fail too many policies and guidelines to just say "oh, we can bend them." Nemu 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Most people don't start out as a wikipedian, they find an article, use WP frequently and may (as in my case) not create an account until years later, when they feel they could seriously improve some articles. What "decent" articles are may be in the eye of the beholder, I just wanted to provide some arguments that one should consider before making a decision. Granted, there will never be a consensus on m:Inclusionism vs. m:Deletionism. Malc82 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's why the notability requirement is based on sources rather than having to make a judgement call. There aren't reliable sources to allow for in depth coverage; anything beyond that doesn't matter. Jay32183 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Most people don't start out as a wikipedian, they find an article, use WP frequently and may (as in my case) not create an account until years later, when they feel they could seriously improve some articles. What "decent" articles are may be in the eye of the beholder, I just wanted to provide some arguments that one should consider before making a decision. Granted, there will never be a consensus on m:Inclusionism vs. m:Deletionism. Malc82 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is basically WP:NOHARM, which Jay just posted. There are close to two million articles on this site with millions more being possible. If a person can only become a good editor by working on episode articles, something is wrong. And most episode articles are not well written; they are either bloated with plot summaries and trivia, or they're stubs. The only decent articles I can think of are Simpsons episodes, and the Dr. Who serials, which still are a far cry from being that good (besides some specific ones). Currently, most episode articles fail too many policies and guidelines to just say "oh, we can bend them." Nemu 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's be frank here, its hard and oftenly impossible to meet WP's notability guideline (or your interpretation of it) for something rather trivial like a tv episode of pretty much any series. Also keep in mind that notable secondary sources (pop-culture research etc.) usually take some time, while the episode recap should be provided shortly after it's first airing. On the other hand, thousands of contributors spend tens of thousands of hours on episode and tv character articles (btw, I contributed about 10 words overall on tv episode articles, so I'm not one of them). Some of these contributors are also improving the more scientific parts of WP, many might become valuable wikipedians in the future. Since articles about tv shows are on average well-written and a useful resource, I think we shouldn't be too strict in judging them. Deletion seriously discourages every editor of these articles from ever contributing to WP again, and will harm WP much more than risking some more "Jimbo's Bag O'Trivia" allegations, which won't stop anyway. The WP-guidelines cited are not written in stone and I think we shouldn't hold episode articles to the same high notability standards that we (rightfully) demand for a controversial political concept or a biography. Malc82 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not about the series at all. It's that these article do not have multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. I can't believe you actually presented that argument after it was explained that "lots of viewers" and "who does it hurt?" were shown not to be valid arguments because they aren't based in policy or guideline. The precedent you're afraid of setting can't happen because the grounds for deletion isn't "This is an individual episode". Jay32183 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Motion to close deletion nomination already!! Beating a Dead Horse here!! 5 days are up!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Action Jackson IV. I believe Z&C to be far less notable and culturally pervasive than Doctor Who, Star Trek, or the Simpsons. It should set a precedence for other similarly less-than-notable episodic pages, and does not set a precedence for others. -- LeCour
- Strong Keep There are many good quality articals that fit into this catagory, for example Doctor Who and Torchwood articals are very well sourced and written. --Wiggstar69 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
