Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor, Victrola

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 — Caknuck (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victor, Victrola

Victor, Victrola (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

My reasons for proposing deletion:

  • The article is merely a plot summary, a specific violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information at point 2;
  • The article gives no indication of real world notability, a violation of WP:N;
  • The article features an episode that has no reason to stand out from the others and thus does not qualify for its own page, per WP:EPISODE;
  • There is no reasonable expectation that any of those three problems will be solved in the future. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


This is an individual nomination, not a mass deletion process. As for comments on other deletion debates, please state here those that you feel apply to this episode, and please keep in mind that inclusion is not a reason for notability (i.e. the argument "we kept those, we gotta keep this" is not an acceptable argument around here). This debate pertains to this particular article. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - however when you are referring to episode articles the "we kept those we gotta keep this" argument (and it's opposite) does apply, because if articles on Episode A and C are kept, but B is deleted ... it creates inconsistency. Anyway, I lack sufficient knowledge if the subject to cast a vote, except that if this is kept it should have a disambiguation note added directing users to Victor, Victoria as this is a not-unreasonable erroneous spelling. 23skidoo (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not apply. The "inconsistence" you point out is the spirit of WP:EPISODE: only if a particular episode is notable in itself it gets its own page; otherwise, it stays in the "List of..." with the others. This implies that not all episodes of the same show get their own page (some do, some do not). --Nehwyn (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
When you nominate just over half the episodes of a new show for a deletion, and not the others, and they all appear to be roughly the same in terms of prominence, notability, etc, then I think it's reasonable to ask what reasoning you're applying and how all the episodes relate. Talking about how notable the episodes are within the context of a show as a whole, and how prominent the show is compared to the many, many other television programs that have an article for every episode, is entirely reasonable. Besides, you're making extra work for everyone by not listing them as a group. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you ask: I nominated some episodes and not others because I didn't get to them. I will with time. And again - this is an individual deletion, not a mass deletion. Each episode is assessed on its own merits to see whether it stands out from the others or not. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
phoebe, please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. --Storkk (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 1 != 2 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing to establish notability in the slightest. --Storkk (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Relisted a second time and still, nobody cares. Keep relisting until you can get the result that you want. Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - see above Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) [Note: Comment moved below line]
Question for Nehwyn - If all episodes were deemed Excellent, should they all be deleted because, as you say, none would "stands out from the others" ? I see little in the way of difference from other programs episode articles (eg.Healthy Competition) that helpful editing wouldn't fix.
As an aside, I would also like to state that I feel this Mass nomination brought to AfD was the incorrect first step in a resolution. WP:Episode points this out here, these articles are neither unverifiable nor original research, and should have had a {{notability|episode}} template appended, to allow relevent editors time to correct the problems. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The condition of other episode articles is irrelevant here. This is an individual nomination, so please stick to commenting the article in question. As for your question, even before considering WP:EPISODE, this article fails two even more fundamental Wikipedia guidelines: it makes no claim to real-world notability (a speedy criterion, actually), and is limited to a plot summary without consideration for the real-world significance of its subject matter (a clear violation of WP:NOT). Each of these alone would be grounds for deletion. As for your suggestion that editors could correct the problems, as stated in my nomination above, I do not think that is possible. The reason why this article makes no claim to notability is that there is none to make; that's not something that can be improved. --Nehwyn (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The condition of other episode articles is absolutely relevent if you are taking the position that "Each episode is assessed on its own merits to see whether it stands out from the others or not. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC) " as a basis of notability. And so I repeat my question, If all episodes were deemed Excellent, should they all be deleted because, as you say, none would "stands out from the others" ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've no interest in discussing hypothetical scenarios in which I would keep or delete other articles. If by my sentence above I've given the opposite impression, I apologise; but on my part, I will stick to commenting the actual state of this article. --Nehwyn (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
What I'm trying to get at, is how you are judging this article. And so far it seems that you just dont like it. You claim "The reason why this article makes no claim to notability is that there is none to make; that's not something that can be improved." I see no difference between this Article and my previous given example. It too would fail your standard of real world notability. Would 'Nielsen Ratings' and their ilk be what you require for real world notability? In general, I have always respected you opinion and I will again in future debates, but in this case, we differ. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
How I'm judging this article is written in the nomination above, and it's based on actual guidelines, not some arbitrary dislike (as in WP:IDONTLIKEIT). As for what constitutes notability, what I would require is of no importance - there are set rules, and you can find them on WP:N. This article just fails them. (That said, I appreciate your statement of respect and possibility to differ from our respective opinions, which of course I share.) --Nehwyn (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
No, the article is not "merely" a plot summary; but it is mostly a plot summary. The solution to this is to remove or trim the plot summary. The episode guideline gives a guideline as ten words per minute of screen time; a 450-word summary might thus be appropriate under that guildeline, but trimming even further might be appropriate given the minimal amount of non-plot information available.
  • "The article gives no indication of real world notability, a violation of WP:N;"
False, the article specifically mentions that it was an episode of a notable prime-time series which aired on two notable national networks, and was directed by a notable director.
  • "The article features an episode that has no reason to stand out from the others and thus does not qualify for its own page, per WP:EPISODE;"
Nothing in WP:EPISODE requires episodes to "stand out" from other epsiodes of the same series, otherwise it would be impossible to have an article for each episode of Star Trek, The Simpsons, or South Park, for example. I might agree, however, that there may not be anything "outstanding" about this episode (or any other Gossip Girl episode) with respect to the domain of all episodes of all TV series; however, the "Dealing with problem articles" section of the episode guildeine specifically says to consider merging or redirecting such articles and to avoid nominating them for deletion.
  • "There is no reasonable expectation that any of those three problems will be solved in the future.
Pure crystal ballery. Have you examined all the appropriate sources which might reasonably be assumed to contain additional information about the subject? Including offline sources such as TV Guide or Variety magazine? However, I have indicated above how to solve the problems, even without consulting other sources, and none of these solutions involves deleting the article (only removing much of the article's content). The existing entry in List of Gossip Girl episodes seems to be adequate to cover this subject. But according to deletion policy, we don't need to delete articles which contain redundant content, but redirect them. Episode names are always plausible search terms which should be redirected to the page containing the information being sought.
Given the above, the proper solution, based on policies and guidelines, is to redirect. DHowell (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
no, it is to write a better article on the basis of the present one. DGG (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have done everything I can to improve the article. They isn't really that much out there. I could include a list of music featured, but I don't think that would help at this point. At this point, I would like a keep but could support a redirect. At any rate, have another look at the article. SorryGuy  Talk  08:24, 23 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.