Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Yips

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 Redirect to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes. Useful content is already present in that article. As an aside, I do understand the desire to bring it to AfD to develop consensus rather than boldly merging - in the future perhaps a straw poll on the article talk page would be sufficient? Pastordavid (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Yips

The Yips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

TV episode without claim to notability to support having a separate page. Proposing deletion by merging into List of How I Met Your Mother episodes per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add here that the article, being just a plot summary, specifically fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article also fails WP:N, since it provides no claim to notability, and obviously no sources corroborating a non-existent claim. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:EPISODE. RMHED (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and/or redirect to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes, or expand from reliable sources, such as Zap2it.com, or the Winnipeg Sun, while trimming plot summary. Where does WP:EPISODE say anything about deleting articles? DHowell 01:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and Expand. No need to delete. Will be expanded in time. Clearly notable.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Please keep in mind this is a debate, not a vote. If you have an opinion to voice, you need to justify it. Can you elaborate on why you think "clearly" WP:EPISODE should not apply to this unreferenced article? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:EPISODE. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Article has a review from IGN - I would define that as significant coverage in a reliable source.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An episode recap is not a claim to notability, I'm afraid. Especially on a review site. Does this episode even have a claim to notability (other than having a plot), such as winning an award, or attracting attention over a contentious issue? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. And is therefore notable. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Acutally, it's reliable sources - multiple sources are required to establish notability (that's the so-called "primary notability criterion). --Nehwyn (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE "Multiple sources are generally preferred." - Preferred NOT required. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So just a single source. Again from WP:NOTE: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." And that's exactly what WP:EPISODE is about. And what claim would this single source corroborate? An award? A particularly high cost for an episode? Or just the fact that it indeed has a plot? --Nehwyn (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody have ever said that there is only one source - three sources have been shown on this page. And again the sources do not in fact have to corroborate anything. Just the fact that it has received significant coverage... means that it is presumed notable.--Peter Andersen (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So far I've seen no claim to notability given, and therefore no source to corroborate it. Just having a plot is not a reason for notability. And indeed, since the article is just a plot summary, it specifically fails WP:NOT. --Nehwyn (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete. Why was this even nominated? Nehwyn (who already has gotten the two previous episodes' articles deleted) advocates "deletion by merging into List of How I Met Your Mother episodes." Huh? Just merge it! Deletion is completely unnecessary, a redirect would be useful, and we'd have to retain the revision history to use any of the text. So what is the purpose of this? —David Levy 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I think just doing it without an AfD will result in an edit war. I'll try it on another episode and see what happens, but for now this nomination stands. So, if you have any reason why you think this particular article satisfies WP:EPISODE, please state it here. --Nehwyn (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that this article satisfies WP:EPISODE. That guideline doesn't prescribe the deletion of noncompliant articles. It recommends "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)" and advises us to "avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research."

If, as stated in your nomination, some of the content should be merged into List of How I Met Your Mother episodes, we need to retain the revision history to comply with the GFDL.

We have a process for merging articles, and it doesn't involve AfD. If you're concerned that boldness will lead to an edit war, the article's talk page is the proper forum in which to establish consensus for the proposed merger. —David Levy 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I didn't express myself clearly in the nomination. I hope it's clearer now. --Nehwyn (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, striking the part about merging doesn't explain why you're "proposing deletion per" a guideline that explicitly advises against AfD (and demanding that anyone opposed to the article's deletion prove that it complies with said guideline, even when that isn't the point that they're arguing).

The onus is on you to demonstrate that Wikipedia would somehow benefit from this page's deletion. So please explain the advantage over simply redirecting or merging and redirecting (as recommended in the very guideline that you've continually cited). —David Levy 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the merge option, I don't think there's anything to merge; the article only contains a plot summary, and Wikipedia specifically discourages those. Since the article goes against WP:NOT and also does not meet the WP:N criteria on its own, I stand by this nomination. The article contains no encyclopaedic content, and therefore does not even need any verification - there's simply nothing to verify. As it stands, this is a fan recapping an episode he liked - that's WP:OR. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really? What position does the author seek to advance? You appear to be much better at tossing up links to policies and guidelines (and seeing what sticks) than you are at actually reading them.

Are you abandoning the WP:EPISODE strategy (and moving on to plan B) now that you realize that it actually undermines your stance (rather than bolstering it)? I've typed detailed replies to your comments, and it's more than a bit frustrating that you've gone out of your way to avoid addressing the parts that aren't convenient for you.

Again, WP:EPISODE (which you have repeatedly cited) advises against taking this matter to AfD. Please explain what we stand to gain by deleting the article instead of simply redirecting the title to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes (and possibly merging content deemed salvageable). —David Levy 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and make my rationale extra clear this time. I think this article is just a plot summary, and that's something WP:NOT specifically mentions as unfit for Wikipedia. In other words, this is an episode recap, not an encyclopaedia entry at all, and I think that's ground for deletion. That said, the article could still be of some interest if it dealt with an episode that for whatever particular reason (cost, contentious content, innovative filming, etc.) stood out from the rest of the episodes, thus qualifying this episode for its own page - that would be justification enough for a separate episode page under WP:EPISODE. But I think that's not the case for this article. Indeed, the article makes no statement at all why this episode should be notable, and that's failing WP:N. We're even beyond the problem of verifiability and sourcing here - sources are used to back up statements and claim to notability, and the article makes neither - it's just a plot summary. I think these reasons combined are enough to warrant deletion. As for the option of merging content into the List of episodes, I think there's nothing to merge - the article is an extended plot summary, whereas I think only a brief one is needed in the List of... page, and we already have that. So no content to be merged, no reason to preserve page history. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just keep talking past me... —David Levy 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even if this were a "problem article," deletion would not be the solution (WP:EPISODE). Plus it's rather silly (and contrary to Wikipedia philosophy) to try to delete an article about an episode the day after it airs (and 61 minutes after its creation). From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD:

Calbaer (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that much older articles from the same series still violate WP:NOT and WP:N - after a long interval from their creation - I do not think that the lack of notability of this episode can be "fixed through normal editing". In other words, I think the reason why this article contains no claim to notability does not depend on its being recent - it depends on the fact that there is no claim to make. Therefore, it falls in the "hopeless" category above.

Or in other words, since you pronounced a "keep" opinion, do you hold this article should be kept: 1) because you think it has something that makes this particular episode stand out from the others? (saved from WP:EPISODE]); 2) because you think the article makes a claim to notability that multiple independent reliable sources can confirm? (saved from WP:N); 3) because you think the article is more than a plot summary? (saved from WP:NOT) --Nehwyn (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My reasons stand on their own accord. I believe your reasons more or less fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Calbaer (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. This is an individual deletion process; whether other articles are kept or deleted does not influence this one. I think this particular episode lacks notability; let the others be assessed elsewhere. As for your reasons, you mysteriously say they "stand on their own accord", but does that mean that they can address any of the three concerns above? --Nehwyn (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop selectively quoting the text the suits your agenda and demanding that people choose from your list (and only your list) of rationales. —David Levy 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Asking people to address the concerns expressed in a deletion nomination is something that as a nominator I will keep on doing. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We've addressed your arguments with rationales X, Y and Z. You've largely ignored these comments and demanded that we present rationales A, B and C (even if those don't reflect our actual viewpoints). You're engaging in a pre-emptive straw man tactic in which you imply that the rationales that you've ruled out are the only ones that could possibly justify not deleting the article (while disregarding the alternative rationales that we've conveyed). And surprisingly, you've implicitly acknowledged that you're doing this (and selectively quoting text that suits your agenda) by responding "no" to my request that you cease this conduct. —David Levy 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I have demanded that anyone address specifically the motives for nomination. I am neither implying nor acknowledging anything except that I stand by my reasons for nominating this article. You say you've addressed these concerns already; to be extra clear, please be kind enough to state how below each of them then. Obviously, should you do the same and list yours in the same orderly manner, I'll be glad to reciprocate. Minimum confusion. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the episode featured in this article has no particular reason to stand out from other episodes in the series. Can you address this concern? --Nehwyn (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, redirect the page to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes (and merge any useful content), as recommended in WP:EPISODE. —David Levy 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the article in question is merely a plot summary. Can you address this concern? --Nehwyn (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, redirect the page to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes (and merge any useful content), as recommended in WP:EPISODE. —David Levy 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the article in question provides no indication of real-world notability. Can you address this concern? --Nehwyn (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, redirect the page to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes (and merge any useful content), as recommended in WP:EPISODE. —David Levy 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's almost funny. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be funny. I'm addressing your false argument that failing to disprove your claims of deficiency necessitates the article's deletion. —David Levy 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you put it that way... I love the creative use of thesaurus there. What you call "claims of deficiency" I (and most deletion debates out there) call "reasons for nomination". So no problem - I said earlier that I felt that your replies failed to address the "claims of deficiency" I had brought forward, and apparently that was exactly the case, and it's become clearer now that direct questions and direct answers were posted. I'm okay with that. --Nehwyn (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been clear from the very beginning that I'm not attempting to refute your assertion that this article fails to meet the criteria laid out at WP:EPISODE. I'm disputing your inexplicable assertion that the only solution is to delete it. Again, that guideline (which you have repeatedly cited) explicitly advises against nominating the article at AfD and recommends that we instead merge/redirect. This is far more useful to readers and editors alike.

In other words, I am addressing your claims of deficiency by noting that they are accurate but insufficient justification for the article's deletion.

No matter how many times I explain the above, you continue to demand that I disprove the claims that I have no intention of even attempting to counter. As I said, this is a pre-emptive straw man argument on your part.

Someone could nominate the Mickey Mouse article for deletion with the rationale "It's about a cartoon character." Someone else could then argue that this isn't a valid reason to delete the article. The nominator could then respond with "I think that this article is about a cartoon character, and you have written nothing to refute that." This is basically tantamount to what you're doing. —David Levy 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be the case only if "no articles about a cartoon character" were a Wikipedia guideline. Unlike in your misleading example, my reasons for deletion are not arbitrary; they're actual policies. Anyway: you simply consider my three motivations not grounds for deletion, whereas I do. That's fair enough for me, and we can just agree to disagree on this point and wait for someone to close the AfD one way or the other. --Nehwyn (talk) 20:46, 13 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.