Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (fourth nomination)
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 Keep, no consensus.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lost: The Journey
Delete Episode articles yes, clip shows no. What surprises me is when I listed this for AfD I found an earlier AfD here that had a strong consensus to delete, but the closing admin ignored this and no one took it to DRV. Ned Scott 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Correction, found DRV here. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 June) says it was relisted.. but I can't see where. In any case, even without all that confusion, we still have an article for... a clip show... With fresh minds and fresh eyes, lets look at this article again. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Found two more AfDs, here (speedy close because of the DRV), and here. I'm at a loss for words here.. I would like to emphasize again that this is not a "should episodes have articles" debate. I've seen AfDs for clip shows in the past, and I don't see why this is an issue.. this is just weird. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Something interesting from the article itself, "On the US release of the season 1 DVD boxed set, "Lost: The Journey" was cut due to space". That's the kind of "episode" we're talking about here... It's not even notable enough for the DVD set. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 06:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- ob-note: it was rewritten (by me). The article is clear as to why it is a notable episode: as an attempt by ABC to bring non-regular viewers of the serialized drama up to speed, presenting for the first time a linear re-telling of the Lost storyline. Further, it is particularly exceptional for a clip series, as it handily won its timeslot-- up against the original programming of every other network. Finally, it is extensively referenced beyond what is included for even "regular" Lost episodes. --LeflymanTalk 06:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Addendum: while the episode was only available as a bonus disk from Best Buy in the US, it was included as episode 21 on the DVD box sets in Region 4. see, for example: [1]--LeflymanTalk 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're saying that it was notable because it's a clip show? That's what you just described... a clip show... "OMG, ABC just told is what happened in the last 20 episodes.. OMG OMG" :P Winning a time slot for a single night of television for a single hour doesn't mean.. much. References are not a problem at all, but notability is. There's nothing here that can't be covered on List of Lost episodes, or even those season articles that we also have. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comments such as the above aren't helpful in persuading AfD respondents of your justification for listing this for deletion. Sarcasm like "OMG..." undercuts your position. The previous AfD, after my rewrite, held a consensus for "keep" -- so the onus is on you to demonstrate how the article has changed since then, or how it no longer meets notability. --LeflymanTalk 07:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You have a weak consensus that was built upon sand and confusion (it sounded good in my head.. but you get the idea). The "consensus" you think you have was wrong, and not a true consensus. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- An entirely specious claim; the previous AfD had 9 Keep recommendations to 3 Deletes, including those who previously recommended deletion. The Keeps were specific and clear. For example, since you seem to have missed these:
-
- Notable episode of notable show. Plenty of verifiable sources for it. Capitalistroadster;
- the article has been rewritten to be useful and is now a part of the series of Lost articles...BigDT;
- Obviously, keep. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. "It's a clip show" is not a reason to delete this article, unless you plan on getting all the other articles on Lost episodes deleted too (which, yes, I would fight against strongly).SB;
- This is no longer the same article I originally wanted deleted. It now explains why this is a significant clip show, explaining the purpose behind it, and has references. I wouldn't say I'd keep all articles about clip shows, but this one does a good job of defending its existence here. BryanG
- --LeflymanTalk 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The 3rd example you have there isn't even accurate. WP:EPISODE says nothing about clip shows and is a page that specifically discourages episode articles. People often misunderstand the first part of that page, "Wikipedia contains a large number of articles on television episodes. There is some disagreement as to whether every episode of every show "deserves" an article, which leads to a large number of AFDs for such articles. The following suggestions aim to promote the creation of high-quality articles about television shows and their episodes, which should help to reduce acrimonious AfD debates." This means that the page hopes to reduce the number of AfDs via merges and preventing episode articles, which is different from not taking existing pages to AfDs. The first example calls it a notable episode, without even explaining why. I don't doubt that you will find people who want to keep something like this, but that means nothing if there is no reasonable logic behind it. -- Ned Scott 01:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You're saying that it was notable because it's a clip show? That's what you just described... a clip show... "OMG, ABC just told is what happened in the last 20 episodes.. OMG OMG" :P Winning a time slot for a single night of television for a single hour doesn't mean.. much. References are not a problem at all, but notability is. There's nothing here that can't be covered on List of Lost episodes, or even those season articles that we also have. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum: while the episode was only available as a bonus disk from Best Buy in the US, it was included as episode 21 on the DVD box sets in Region 4. see, for example: [1]--LeflymanTalk 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. We can't pick-and-choose what episodes to feature, otherwise we might as well, for example, delete the article on the Star Trek: The Next Generation clip show Shades of Grey. 23skidoo 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we should pick and choose what episodes to feature, as some episodes are simply not notable. But that's not even a factor, because this isn't a real episode. It's not apart of the story.. it's a retelling of the story. It's about as significant as a TV commercial. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This article can't ever establish a real world significance, in that there is no development or critical review. The entire article is basically trivia. Jay32183 22:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: No episode article establishes real world significance; this one at least has actual references, including the rather significant viewership it garnered -- higher than recent new episodes of Lost. As pointed out by the TV critic for the St. Louis Post Dispatch', "the hour-long recap is, for once, not just a cheap way to stretch out a hit show. This time, it's a public service."--LeflymanTalk 00:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Pilot (House), Homer's Phobia, Cape Feare, and Abyssinia, Henry all establish real world significance by discussing development and reception. All episode articles should do this, this one cannot. Jay32183 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- So it's not significant that this episode was (along with the Desperate Housewives special) the first primetime show streamed over the Internet by the ABC network? Or that it is specifically pointed out at Clip show as an example of how "the clip show has been employed more seriously as a means to bring viewers up to date on highly serialized dramas..."--LeflymanTalk 02:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- That leaves two sentences and a bunch of trivia. Those two things are even quite trivial. There is no development, no plot, no effect on the story arc, no reception. Where's the content that makes this article worth having? Jay32183 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- So it's not significant that this episode was (along with the Desperate Housewives special) the first primetime show streamed over the Internet by the ABC network? Or that it is specifically pointed out at Clip show as an example of how "the clip show has been employed more seriously as a means to bring viewers up to date on highly serialized dramas..."--LeflymanTalk 02:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, Pilot (House), Homer's Phobia, Cape Feare, and Abyssinia, Henry all establish real world significance by discussing development and reception. All episode articles should do this, this one cannot. Jay32183 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: No episode article establishes real world significance; this one at least has actual references, including the rather significant viewership it garnered -- higher than recent new episodes of Lost. As pointed out by the TV critic for the St. Louis Post Dispatch', "the hour-long recap is, for once, not just a cheap way to stretch out a hit show. This time, it's a public service."--LeflymanTalk 00:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete We don't have pages for the other recap-shows, nor do we need them. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Merge into Lost (season 1). --thedemonhog talk contributions 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)- How about we merge it with Lost (season 1). I think that this article contains solid, real world information that every other Lost episode article drastically lacks, and for that reason it should be kept. Yet creating an article for one clip show will create a precedent that all clip shows are notable, which is not true at all. Therefore I think the most sound solution would be to merge the more notable prose in this article into the season overview article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Jtrost. This article contains some of the better content written about lost on wikipedia. Particularly in terms of the episode guides. However, it is lacking in some information because of the nature of the episode itself. I cannot see this being corrected and think this useful and interesting content should be merged into the season article.--Opark 77 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- While not my first choice, since the article is mostly trivia, a merge (season article or even the LOE) would at least be better than an individual article. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Jtrost. This article contains some of the better content written about lost on wikipedia. Particularly in terms of the episode guides. However, it is lacking in some information because of the nature of the episode itself. I cannot see this being corrected and think this useful and interesting content should be merged into the season article.--Opark 77 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This article actually seems to meet WP policy and guidelines more than most other articles about TV episodes. --Minderbinder 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Which ones? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:WAF and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for a start: "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." --Minderbinder 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it's trivial and not notable. Just because it's it doesn't suffer from a huge plot summary does not mean it meets all of our guidelines. You can't honestly tell me that anything in that article is of any importance. It's a clip show. It's not a real episode, at all. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that there are other articles to delete is not a reason to keep this one. Jay32183 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it's trivial and not notable. Just because it's it doesn't suffer from a huge plot summary does not mean it meets all of our guidelines. You can't honestly tell me that anything in that article is of any importance. It's a clip show. It's not a real episode, at all. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:WAF and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for a start: "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." --Minderbinder 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Which ones? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Claiming a recap episode as noteable in any way is way out there. Jtrainor 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- merge with Lost (season 1), because the sources and real-world discussion are valuable information to be kept and needed in other articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the article is cited and presents notable information about the clip show. The Filmaker 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The issue is that the clip show itself is not noteable, not that the information in it is not. Jtrainor 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Are you saying that the subject of the article is non-notable, but the contents of the article are notable? That seems like contradictory logic to me. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem isn't notability at all, it that there isn't enough non-trivial information for the article to stand on its own. Basically, the only bits of nontrivial information are the original broadcast date and the ratings from that night. Whether or not the subject is notable doesn't matter if it is impossible to provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Jay32183 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Are you saying that the subject of the article is non-notable, but the contents of the article are notable? That seems like contradictory logic to me. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The issue is that the clip show itself is not noteable, not that the information in it is not. Jtrainor 00:59, 4 April 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.
