Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Bad Too

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 except signature updates.

The result was DELETE. Evidently too much uncertainty and crystal-bally for the time being. The injunction has been lifted now. I would observe that the 4-fold relisting here was ridiculous. If there is no consensus, the article survives, and it should not be repeatedly relisted until the decision becomes trivial for the closing admin - this AfD has festered for more than a month. In this case, I'm obviously considering all the presented arguments up to this, eventual closure time. -Splash - tk 00:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Bad Too

My Bad Too (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This episode has been speculated to be in the running order for season 7 for weeks, first being speculated to be airing in November, then December 27. It cites no reliable sources for an episode article. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no sources that the episode even exists. Will (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hold off on your comments, folks. As another administrator pointed out, there is a Halt to activities on decisions about individual episodes of TV series and characters on a TV series. It's not been well-publicized but it's still going on, so far as I know Mandsford (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We really need to make a general decision on what to do about AFD's on episodes while the injunction is still in place. Should they just be procedurally closed and then renominated if necessary after the arbitration case is finished, or should we just put a comment in the AFD that the injunction is in place and then keep relisting until the case is finished? Not sure where this should be discussed so raising it here. Davewild (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The current injunction is messy and is widely opposed by nearly all of the parties in the RfAr. One look at it can tell you it's only supposed to apply to notability, and it's very unfortunate that articles such as this are caught up by extremely terrible wording. Will (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
To Davewild, I have asked that question, and many others have asked it, and the question seems to be intentionally not being answered. My action plan is to relist ad nauseum until advised differently by the ARBCOM. To close against consensus seems inherantly wrong, and to close per consensus could result is desysopping. To leave open without relisting will create an unmanageable backlog, so relisting is the only way that does not result in harm being done. To Mandsford, people do not have to hold off on their comments... ARBCOM did not say we can't talk, just can't take action. JERRY talk contribs 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: Will I note you have proposed an amendment to the injunction on the workshop we shall see what ARBCOM think of it. Re: Jerry, seems as sensible a course as any, but suggest that a note be put on affected AFDs so that contributors who are not aware of the case are told why the AFD is being relisted, but that comments on keeping/deleting/merging/redirecting are encouraged so the AFDs can be quickly closed once ARBCOM finish the case. Considering the proposed decision has not even been started yet we could have this situation for a while and putting a notice on the AFD will prevent comments like this 'Speedy Keep due to an ArbCom injunction. Though normally I would vote to delete' which will make the closing admins job even harder. Davewild (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(template moved to top)

Looks good to me. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I approve of using this template as an interim solution. It's better than holding the argument in every AFD that gets opened, at the very least. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good solution too. In the case of this episode description, Delete. My understanding is that there's not an inherent notability in individual episodes, even of a popular TV series, and that notability has to be demonstrated in a real-world as well as an in-universe fashion. This may well become the first new episode of Scrubs after the writers' strike; there may be some notability if the strike kept a script from being filmed and presented. So far, the article is just a slight paraphrase of the tv.com summary, and it won't matter if this article gets "scrubbed". (I had to read this one twice-- Turns out its says that "J.D. is in charge of treating a BURN patient", not "a BUM patient" "burn" and "bum" look similar) Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly encourage that a note of the {{FICTWARN}} template be brought up at the RfAr page for input. And for the sake of clarity to place it at the top of the AfD page, (similar to {{not a ballot}})-- RoninBK T C 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no season for the page to be removed. Looks decent enough. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.193.230 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 20:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Three weeks and still no reliable source? Delete per nom once the injunction is lifted. – sgeureka t•c 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The arbcom injunction only applies to notability discussions. As such, it does not apply to this AfD. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per NBC's post-strike announcement that episodes will air from April. Catchpole (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    It doesn't magically make the episode exist, though. Will (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RelistedJerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, not verifiable right now, and even if it were there is no indication that it is particularly notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete Users can recreate this stub if it is confirmed. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:16, 9 March 2008 (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.