Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Life on a Stick)

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 no consensus, default keep, leaning merge (if anyone is so inclined, a merge would not be inappropriate). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot (Life on a Stick)

Pilot (Life on a Stick) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-significant pilot episode from a minor television series (cancelled after 5 episodes). The plot summary is the same as on the episode list. Prod contested with no changes made. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating:
The Defiant Ones (Life on a Stick) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Fish Song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Liking Things the Way They Aren't (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
These are all episodes of the same series. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per consensus to improve episode articles and not outright delete (I can cite many precedents). We must remember that Wikipedia is not paper (WP:NOT#PAPER). The television series is notable, hence an episode is notable for being watched by lots of viewers. The article contains real world information such as writer, director and guest stars. We must have faith the Wiki process will improve this article over time. Matthew 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pilot per nom.Edit: redirect pilot, as the list article got created today, presumably incorporating content from the older pilot episode. Merge the others as there isn't enough content for separate articles. I don't see anything terribly important besides the plot summaries there. The material in the infoboxes is adequately covered in the main Life on a Stick article. With the plot summaries this short and a sitcom that didn't generate enough interest to avoid cancellation after only five episodes, I doubt the articles will be expanded much.--Chaser - T 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)--Chaser - T 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge: Merge all into generalized pages by season with descriptions. None are terribly too significant. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Matthew. - Peregrine Fisher 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said above, the predcedents for keeping cited above are AfD's for major TV series', most of which are still on the air. This is a barely notable series cancelled after 5 episodes. We don't even do things by precedent here; we should judge based on the articles in this AfD, not other ones. The only thing making the series notable is that it at least made it to TV. Citing precedent is little more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is nothing establishing what makes the individual episodes of this series notable. Where are the sources for WP:V and WP:RS? Also, nowhere in WP:EPISODE does it say all epidode articles are worthy of inclusion. It even says: "If the articles contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • He said "per", Peregrine did not bring up precedents - on that matter: my comment does not suggest they should be kept because "other stuff exists", it clearly states: "consensus to improve episode articles and not outright delete" (of which I provided oodles of citations). I imagine Peregrine refers to my other reasoning as well. Have a good evening, Matthew 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • And the "consensus" is for episodes of major, established series', not ones cancelled after 5 episodes. How is keeping an episode article for a series like NCIS (currently in its 4th season) consensus for keeping epidodes of series' that were cancelled less than halfway through their first season? Also, many of those ones kept were only kept after improvements were made during the AfD. Do you plan to improve this? Some sources to meet WP:RS would be nice.
        • As an aside, why did you mark the removal of the {{prod}} tag as minor? Are you suggesting my edit was vandalism? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It's automatically marked as minor. I guess you could say I was saying: "I object to your prod"... now, I'm unsure where you pulled the accusation of vandalism from... Matthew 18:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm mainly concerned about the use of a reversion script to contest a prod. Reversions are not just for any removal, "Do not revert good faith edits." "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule." From WP:REVERT and WP:MINOR. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Notice how they're "help pages" :-)? Matthew 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article does not have the multiple, reliable, secondary sources independant of the subject for the articles to expand beyond plot summaries. Without the sources improvement is impossible. Also remember that the closing admin is not a verification service, so don't say keep unless you intend to find sources. Assuming they are there is entirely insufficient and harmful to Wikipedia as a whole. Jay32183 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I added multiple, reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 23:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • For only one of the articles, and if that's as far as the article can go, it still isn't good enough. The articles do not have the potential to be fully developed. The only way for the article to not be dominated by plot summary is for there to be only one sentence of plot summary, making it shorter than the coverage on an episode list. Claiming that two is multiple is not sufficient. WP:N says that the number of sources required depends on the depth of coverage, and there are no in depth discussions. Notability still has not been established. Jay32183 23:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I disagree. You wanted multiple reliable sources, you got them. Now you say multiple reliable sources aren't enough. I get the feeling you just don't like episode pages. Also, multiple means more than one. - Peregrine Fisher 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Multiple does mean more than one, but two sources mentioning something doesn't make it notable. Your support of episode pages shows you have zero understanding of WP:N. In all of these discussions, you have never once presented a valid argument. The policies and guidelines exist so Wikipedia can be a quality encyclopedia, and keeping articles like this, that can never be more than poorly written crap hurt Wikipedia, but not as much as people who insist the poorly written crap should remain because they find it useful. These articles can never provide comprehensive coverage of their topics because the sources do not exist. That is the ultimate reason for deletion. If you'd rather be making a fan guide, then contribute to a fan guide, not an encyclopedia. Jay32183 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • How about 6 reliable sources? - Peregrine Fisher 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
              • It's not the number of sources. It's the ability to write a comprehensive, encyclopedic article based on reliable sources. Jay32183 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                • It has commentary backed by reliable sources on its debut, plot, and reception so I'd say its comprehensive. I'm getting the feeling that you think articles on episodes are not encyclopedic regardless of content. - Peregrine Fisher 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • The sources provided do not establish notability, because the episodes are not the subject of them. Being mentioned is not enough. Abyssinia, Henry is encyclopedic. Look at that as a goal before you judge an individual episode. Most episodes are not going to meet WP:N and WP:RS. Most of everything isn't going to meet policy and guideline. Try making quality articles rather than trying to make articles on everything, becuase that should not happen. Jay32183 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • It's good that you find one of our 5-10 FA episode articles to be encyclopedic. I don't feel that episodes need to be brought to FA status to avoid a delete vote. - Peregrine Fisher 04:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • First off, not a vote. It doesn't have to be brought to FA right now, but there shouldn't be articles where it's impossible. With these articles it is impossible because there are not sources where these episodes are the subject. Pay attention to detail. Jay32183 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                        • Two of the refs go into detail on the episode, the four others discuss various things concerning it. I hit "random article" ten times, and none of those are as well refed as this one. In other words, we'd be deleting one of our most reliably sourced articles. - Peregrine Fisher 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                          • Other stuff needing to be deleted is not a valid reason to keep. Jay32183 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                            • I know, but 1.6 million other articles needing to be deleted means something. - Peregrine Fisher 05:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                              • I guess you never make sampling errors when you calculate statistics. It is not one of the most reliably sourced articled. If you want to see a reliably sourced article see James I of England. Jay32183 06:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Per Wikipedia:Television episodes#Dealing with problem articles. Put them all into on page; gather real world content. It's good that it has a reception section, most episodes articles don't even have that..just quotes and random trivia. So props for accomplishing that much, but in the way of real world content outside of just a couple of reviews (one that isn't from a professional critic), it is lacking. No behind the scenes information. It's the pilot, in comparison to the rest of the series it should be the most important episode — it's the episode that started it all. So, I say merge until you can find enough relevant, real world information that can actually support an full article, instead of what amounts to 50% plot, 50% reviews (with 1 review that probably isn't professional).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, for future reference Mr. Z-man, please see the part that says Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research. It becomes extremely tiresome to have to go through AfD and AfD for hundreds, probably thousands of individual episode articles. It's probably a topic that could be brought up on the show's main page, where a proposed merger is suggested for all the episodes into 1 single article (maybe per season, maybe for the entire series).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

template fixed by Gnangarra 10:00, 12 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.