Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thing That Wouldn't Die

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Thing That Wouldn't Die

The Thing That Wouldn't Die (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This episode does not conform to the standards set by WP:EPISODE, so it currently fails WP:N. There is no assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and find sources. It's the series finale, surely there are articles about it. It needs sourcing and a shortening of the plot description, of course. Pinball22 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per consensus and because it is the series finale which lends weight and value to notability. I also will sound like a broken record here, but a drive to improve all the 3rd Rock from the Sun articles came to a sudden halt when TTN started autonomously deleted, redirecting, and trying to delete all the articles thus derailing any improvement efforts underway. They will be improved on given time and without any continued disruptive POV edits from TTN. --Maniwar (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Aren't nominators supposed to do some research before they come here? Using Newsbank, I found a number of reviews pertaining to this specific episode:

• Lynn Elber. "3RD ROCK' BLASTS OFF IN FAMILIAR, KOOKY STYLE". The Belleville (IL) News-Democrat. 22 May 2001.
• Alan Pergament. "'3RD ROCK' FINALE GOES THUD". The Buffalo News. 22 May 2001.
• Phil Rosenthal. "`3rd Rock' takes flight; Elvis Costello serenades visitors home". Chicago Sun-Times. 22 May 2001.
• Steve Johnson. "In `Third Rock' finale, Elvis helps them leave". Chicago Tribune. 22 May 2001.
• Mike Duffy. "SILLY AND SUBLIME, ALIENS BLAST OFF FROM PLANET TV". Detroit Free Press. 22 May 2001.

That should be more than enough to satisfy WP:NOTE requirements. Zagalejo^^^ 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Zagalejo. Maxamegalon2000 06:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above Morphh ^(talk) 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Clear Delete and all the above arguments are junk. The article fails the real-world standard for fictional material per WP:FICT; it is WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:TRIVIA. Garnering reviews is hardly an assertion of notability that requires an individual article beyond the main one on the series itself. Where is the real-world context that makes this worth retaining on its own? Eusebeus 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• We're arguing on the notability of the subject, not the present state of the article. The article can always be improved. I don't understand how multiple episode-specific reviews are not good enough (and the ones I posted above are only a sample of what I found). WP:N says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This episode clearly passes that test. Stop moving the goal posts. Zagalejo^^^ 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As a series finale, this episode draw substantial reliable and verifiable coverage, all of which satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments, established sources, WP:EPISODE's direct recommendation against deletion, and based on past assertions by nominator and Eusebeus that redirects are a better solution than deletion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — I see a big fat plot summary and a cast list; the externs are to notoriously non-reliable sources. --Jack Merridew 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are cleanup issues. You haven't given a valid reason for deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I have; "clean" those concerns up and you have nothing left.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. — WP:V#Burden of evidence

--Jack Merridew 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've shown that they exist. And now I just added some to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now on the basis that this is the final episode and seems to have garnered some non-trivial third-party reviews. I will switch to solid keep if sources have been added to the article, or to redirect if a lack of article improvement calls for another AfD in a few weeks/months. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, we don't use AFD to force article cleanup. The sources exist, so the topic is notable. If no one has added the sources after a few months, you can go to the library and add them yourself. (I do intend to get to this article eventually, but there are hundreds of other articles I'd rather be working on, so it might be a while.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not enforcing cleanup, but I am applying WP:EPISODE#Process. The article has only very little non-trivial real-world information, and no secondary sources at this point, so this episode should actually still be stuck at the "List of episodes" (or a Season page) point. If this doesn't change within a few weeks/months, then it can/should be redirected to the LoE until the info is finally added by someone. There is no reason to let this article violate WP:NOT#PLOT forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the rush to make this a redirect. A redirect is the lazy way out, isn't it? Most of the article's content would end up in the finished product anyway. The plot summary just needs a copyedit; it isn't long at all, especially for a two-part episode. Zagalejo^^^ 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are "a few weeks/months" really a rush? I have written FA material from scratch within three weeks, so writing a paragraph for production and one for reception shouldn't be that hard. Especially since notable topics have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources by definition. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's more than sufficient time for one article, but there are hundreds of other articles that need even more work, and I don't think this article is a top priority for anyone. Why not be patient? What happened to WP:TIND or WP:INSPECTOR? Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen and worked on a lot of episode articles, and giving indefinite development time to episode articles and being patient accomplishes little to nothing. Due to their nature, ep articles are doled out at a much(!) higher frequency than what effort can be put into them, leaving hundreds of extremely poor articles behind that likely no-one can or will ever bring in line with guidelines and policies. Obeying WP:EPISODE#Process however gets rid of this problem. If you (general you) cannot establish the notability (or the potential) at the point of article creation, don't start the article. There is userspace for article development. Redirected articles can be improved and resurrected. However, letting episode articles remain in a poor state forever just gives people the idea that that's what wikipedia wants an ep article to look like (see WP:FA and WP:GA for what's really desired). For everything else, there are fan wikis (which can then be linked from wikipedia if need be). – sgeureka ^t•c 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of that sounds like a "Wikipedia isn't working"-style argument.... but whatever. I've added a few refs. It's not a FA, but I think it's improved. Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It's notable, it's verifiable, and it's culturally relevant. 'Nuff said. - Dravecky 20:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Sources demonstrate it meets notability and, with a little clean-up, it can easily meet WP:EPISODE. Ursasapien (talk) 04:11, 3 December 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.