Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. MfD is not the optimal forum for discussing whether a policy or process is approved or disapproved by the community (That's why talk pages, centralized discussions, and RfCs exist); many MfDs are rightly closed on procedural grounds when the merit of the policy or process (rather than the deletion of the page) is the major topic of discussion. It would have been fair to close the discussion for this reason. In any case, given that the process below is new, and that it addresses an issue many commenters below agree is problematic, there is clearly no consensus to delete the page at this time. If the process should later be disapproved by talk page consensus, even then an MfD would be unneeded, as the page could simply be marked historical. Xoloz 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review

Note: To address some concerns regarding appearance, the page in question was moved during the MfD from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Articles for review to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review. Comments shown before 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC) are referring to the old page location. --Ned Scott 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This page houses a non-actionable process (as defined at Wikipedia:Television article review process -- it's still proposed). The page has been used multiple time to hold a "vote" on an article's fate, the irony is the consensus is oftenalways decided by a partipant of the discussion.

Simply put: this is a forum for deletion, it's being attempted "under the radar" (i.e. it's located in a place few people know about) -- and has no power to actually delete (def. of redirect = history preserved, but article is gone.)

There is a non-contentious process for merges already established (WP:MERGE#Proposing a merger) which can be used. If an editor believes an article is non-notable, and would like to push for deletion, then they can also PROD or AfD it.

This is simply one of those unhelpful bureaucratic processes, thus it should be deleted. Matthew 11:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, as a non-actionable process that clearly carries no weight. --Angie Y. 11:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete articles can be merged via normal processes, no need for a special forum for television episodes. Tim! 12:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The need for a process like this has been demonstrated many times. I can understand and respect that you disagree with the process used, but saying there is no need is just not true. -- Ned Scott 16:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There is never a need for additional bureaucracy. WP:BURO, WP:CREEP. Tim! 09:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Then what do you fall peer reviews, or WikiProject based discussions? You keep yelling about bureaucracy, but this is nothing more than people coming together in a discussion and saying "does this meet these guidelines" and/or "do they have the potential to meet these guidelines". Wikipedians are not limited to only using XfDs, and any process that helps improve Wikipedia is generally welcome. You might wish to re-read those pages you cite, because they don't advise against these kinds of things. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
          • And if you want to cite policy, WP:NOT#ANARCHY. Structure where it helps the encyclopedia, like in a massive cleanup project, is a key part to how Wikipedia works. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a clear guideline concerning articles on television episodes, at WP:EPISODE. This effort appears to have been launched because an overwhelming majority of individual episode articles abjectly fail practically every aspect of that guideline. There are few other areas where the bulk of articles so consistently fail to correspond to the content guideline; that makes this a valuable project. Eusebeus 12:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The process has definitely not been conducted "under the radar". It has been advertised all over wikipedia, in various TV projects, the village pump, and all the places that Gwinva said. So that's a null reason for deletion. Seraphim Whipp 12:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eusebeus. There are so many non-notable tv articles that a mass-process is needed to clean-up the problem. --Jack Merridew 12:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - overly elaborate process. Just use a merge tag and hold the discussion on the talk page. Addhoc 12:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • One idea I had was to have the review process like an RM, in that the discussion could actually take place on the article's talk page, a WikiProject talk page, or a parent article talk page, and simply be listed on the review page. In that sense, the process would pretty much be just as you suggested it, but with a centralized tracking page, much like a delsort page. Would you object to that? -- Ned Scott 16:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No, that would be a significant improvement. Addhoc 18:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This review page provides a central venue for comment on articles within Wikiproject television. It it not exclusive: anyone can join in. The review process is constantly being developed (ie proposed) as more people contribute and get involved in the reviews. It has been developed by a number of editors following a rather heated debate at AN/I in an effort to find middle ground in dealing with a rather large number of television articles which fail Wikipedia's own guidelines on notability. People from all 'sides' got involved. The discussions took place at WT:TVE, WP:TV-EPISODE and WP:TV-REVIEW and were advertised at the ANI, the Village Pump, and at all the television WikiProjects inviting contributions from all. The project aims to find the middle ground between deletionism and inclusionism, reviewing episode articles, merging/redirecting (not deleting!!) articles which fail notability (ie. shouldn't be on Wikipedia) or offering constructive comment for their improvement. It is hoped that once the review process is fine-tuned, it could be developed for other types of articles. This MfD has been filed by someone who objects to the project, but has not contributed to the discussions despite being invited to. It is worth also reading Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:Dated episode notability. Anyone can be bold and merge or redirect articles, or list for Afd, but such actions in the past have led to considerable ill-feeling. The aim of this is to provide a forum for discussion, assistance, transparency and accountability: anyone who feels unhappy with an action can come and discuss it, ask more information, contribute, so no editors need feel something is happening outside their control. Every article reviewed has had at least 14 days notice prior to review; on review, notices have been left on episode and parent article pages, so all involved editors can contribute. If action takes place, then a notice is put up to that effect, and a process developed for people to request re-review if necessary. The review page itself is linked from the relevant WikiProject television and epsiode guideline pages. Gwinva 13:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - (EC)Sorry, but the problem is with the episode articles, not this review process. Here's the problem. There are thousands of episodes out there, and it would take forever to have a discussion on each one individually, one-at-a-time. Matthew has complained the entire time, but has NEVER come to participate in any discussion. The process is designed to be not only fair (which it is, because it gives plenty of forewarning for review, and then gives several days of discussion...if no one comes that isn't the review processes fault, just like if no one showed up on the talk page of the article), but meant to take place on a neutral ground. You don't hold FACs or AfDs on article talk pages. If you did one episode at a time, it would take forever, and you would force people to have to save hundreds of episodes to their watchlist at a time. If you did it by show, you'd force them to save dozens at a time. This is a less hassle process, where you can just watch the review process itself. It would be pretty annoying to constantly notify anyone at WP:TV of every single merging taking place, hence why we left a notification of the review process so that anyone can stop by and discuss an article whenever they way. This whole idea of "under the radar" is untrue, and it's Matt's attempt to get his way. Here's why it isn't "under the radar". You're notified on the episode in question that a review is taking place, and you are given a link to that actual location. You are notified on the article where the episode may be merged (if that is the outcome), and provided a link to the review location. You are notified on the main articles talk page, and provided a link to where the review is taking place. It seems to me that people are notified just about everywhere that is relevant. If you don't show up, that isn't the reviews fault, as the articles were notified at all the right spots. These problems articles have existed for a very long time, with no one attempting to establish notability, and the process is much easier if you notify everyone that needs notfication and direct them to a place that is reviewing, not only multiple episodes of a show, but multiple shows (i.e. the idea is you'll see the other shows and joing that discussion as well). Doing this "keep it in the family of the show" thing is flying "under the radar", because if one person came to a television show with the concern that the episode articles did not establish notability, and should be merged do you know what would happen? They would be overwhelmed by the "family" of editors that work on those articles, and no matter what strong argument he established for their merging, the number of people opposing (regardless of the reason) would win out (i.e. that isn't a discussion for consensus, that is the "voting" that Matt claims is going on) by the shear number of people that just do not want to accept that there is a problem and simply vote "keep". Also, the idea is to suggest things that should be done, by merging things transwiki (like unencyclopedic trivia). Trust me, if simple merge proposals were that easy to accomplish then this wouldn't have been an issue, but when you have people canvassing (i.e. "come save this episode") it kind of creates an unfair atmosphere. At least with the review process, it takes place on a neutral ground where other discussions are taking place, and we've notified several other projects that reviews take place there in an effort to draw in more unbiased opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Your comments should be focussed on the project space page being proposed for deletion instead of Matthew. If you want to comment on him, open a user conduct RfC.--Addhoc 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep To all of the people saying to merge or delete them without this process, do you honestly believe that would work? If we had discussions on the talk pages, either no one would participate, or like Bignole said, vast numbers of editors like Angie Y. who have put much effort into these articles would show up, demanding they stay. If we tried to AfD them, AfD would be backlogged for ever. With the process that is currently in place, there is a centralized discussion, and all relevant people are notified. How is this over complicated? It exists in two steps (originally) articles were tagged because they failed WP:EPISODE, and therefore WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. After fourteen days or more depending on the backlog, they were reviewed to see if they still failed them. At which time, they were redirected, or if they made the guidelines and policies, they would be kept. All so far have failed. People really take issue with this not because of the process itself, or it "not being discussed for consensus" but because they want the articles here, even though they clearly fail the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. As such, anything attempting to remove these articles is met with opposition. Hence the TfD that was deleted without consensus, and now this MfD. ttempting to remove these articles is met with opposition. Hence the TfD that was deleted without consensus, and now this MfD. In response to the nom, the fact that they are not being deleted makes this even better. If someone two months from now wanted to make these articles fit policy, then the history would still be there, and they could being again while it fits policy. And how is this a vote? By your logic, everything is a vote. And always decided by a participant of the discussion? As opposed to someone who hasn't at all? Oh. Did you mean like a neutral ish Admin like they have on AfD's? Well, that could be arranged I suppose, but I cant see any admin willing to take on that workload of closing them and redirecting those articles. I  (said) (did) 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a valid discussion area, and it has been used to establish consensus on a number of TV articles. Matthew's MfD here is not only disruptive, but misleading as well. These reviews are marked on the episode article, on a parent article, and on WikiProjects that cover these articles. This process, while still being tweaked, is far better than the scattered discussions and revert wars of the past. With this process we also do stuff like redirect an article, but place a note on those that seem to have potential, allowing for easily restoring the article once notability and sources have been found. There is nothing hidden or "under the radar" about this process, whatsoever. Matthew and others supporting delete simply did not agree with the outcome of these reviews, and in turn are trying to force their way by deleting the review process. Consensus simply does not work like that. -- Ned Scott 16:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--WaltCip 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-I understand the reasons behind creating a process here, actually support it, but a subpage on a Wikiproject simply is not the way process are created. Somebody write up a proposal, submit it for community consensus, the whole nine yards. At the very least, get this away from the Wikiproject's subpage and into a normal project space page. Intended or not, the page's being a subpage presents the idea that the project controls it and others are not welcome. Again, not accusing that that's intended, but it can easily come across that way.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We don't delete pages that need to be moved, we just move them. You bring up a very good point, and I don't think anyone would object to moving it out of the WikiProject namespace. The review process, however, was the result of a community discussion (such as the village pump, WT:EPISODE, WP:AN/I, other WikiProjects, etc). The WikiProject task force was even a result of the discussion (as in, it came after the review process discussion). If we move the page, would you support keeping it? -- Ned Scott 17:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If that were to be done, than yeah, I'd have no real problems. (Although I'd like to see an announcement at the community portal or some-such when it was done, just to make sure the word gets out.)--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Changing to keep as my principal concerns have been addressed. I've still got reservations about the concept, but nothing requiring deletion, really.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. In my experience, there are some WP:OWNership issues here, not on the part of the creators of the episode articles, but on the part of WikiProject Television. Over the last year and a half, I have seen many good faith editors who were creating individual episode articles, who were then quite vigorously and personally attacked by some editors from WikiProject Television for "violating guidelines." Attempts to show that guidelines are recommendations and not policy, have not been successful. Attempts to change the guidelines to reflect actual practice, have just resulted in revert wars. Attempts to hold mediation in regards to certain shows' episodes have not been successful, because even when all editors in the mediation agree, then the WikiProject folks come in and say, "Mediation doesn't trump Wikipedia-wide guidelines," and they stomp on any previously-agreed consensus. I have also frequently seen WikiProject editors state that they want to have personal "control" or "veto authority" over all episode articles created on Wikipedia. This "Episode coverage" page appears to be an extension of this desire for control, by bypassing other Wikipedia processes. When it comes right down to it, extra episode pages really don't hurt anything, per WP:PAPER, and there's obviously an intuitive feeling on the part of many other editors, both new and old, that creating episode pages is the right way to go. For WikiProject Television to then hold these discussions and delete the articles out from under the new editors, also feels to me like a violation of WP:BITE. Yes, I realize that there's a problem with some episode pages, especially in the case of an ongoing show when emotions are running high. My recommendation is to take the longer view -- if a show still obviously has a passionate fanbase, the episode pages appear to have a "consensus" to stay, and it's really not worth all the emotional angst and fireworks to forcibly delete them. After the show goes off the air and the fans turn to other shows, then we can look back at a show's run, determine which episodes were genuinely "notable" by mainstream standards, and merge as necessary, via normal Wikipedia processes. --Elonka 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • And all the comments about "hard work" lost doesn't show that these editors have their own ownership problems? A passionate fanbase? Since when did Wikipedia become a fansite? Don't those shows already have those sites? Most of these articles do nothing but steal unsourced trivia from IMDb.com, and write up plot summaries with excessive detail. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. The idea behind notability is that you should make sure the subject is already notable, before you create the article, especially when you are dealing with something that is a minor point on a larger topic (i.e. an episode compared to a season or series article). What is this violation of "BITE"? You are responding as if people are attacking newb editors who create an article one day and it's deleted the next. Most of the articles I've seen have been around for up to, or longer than a year. That's hardly "biting" someone, especially when there has been plenty of time to establish notability in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There have been a group of editors who are adamantly against any episode articles on Wikipedia, for any reason. This page appears to be their latest tactic. To my knowledge, every single set of episodes that's been brought up, has achieved a "consensus" of "merge/redirect". Nothing has survived. That's not a balanced review mechanism, it's a kangaroo court lynch mob. Show me some shows that survive this "review", and I may reconsider my opinion. --Elonka 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I can't, because we decided to try and take care of the articles that clearly had nothing more than plot summaries and IMDb trivia. There were a select few who had potential to establish notability, which we noted when we left a message on the parent articles following consensus to redirect and merge. One that immediately comes to mind was the King of the Hill episode "Good Hill Hunting", because it contained a section discussing how that episode had impacted things outside of the series (namely the subject of "growing" wild game for the purpose of killing them). The problem with that, was there wasn't a single source to help substantiate the claims, not even, in the least, an unreliable source. If you go through the reviews, certain episodes were picked out that showed potential, but lacked any type of sourcing to at least back their claims. There was also suggestions on what to do, whether that be how to improve the LOE articles so they can include certain information that wouldn't necessarily make an entire episode notable itself, but it was still relevant to the encyclopedia (e.g. Nielsen Ratings). Most of the articles that have more than just plots and random trivia we decided to save for last, because we knew that they would require an extensive discussion, with much more advice, because they had asserted some form of notability, but simply lacked the verifiability to back it up. This MfD, and most of the outcry, was designed to kill the process before it had the chance to actually find articles that sat on that fine line of showing notability, but not having the proof to back it up. A lot of the times, most of the information the articles that have been reviewed so far is more inclined to be found on a Wikia site, and not Wikipedia. No one has given the process a chance, as there's been constant argument over the stubbiest of articles being redirected, after already having 16+ days to atleast find some sources to show notability. That, and having to go through all these TfDs by editors who didn't like the fact that any article was going to be redirected. You say there is a group of editors that think all episode articles should be gone, and the counter to that is also true. There is a group of editors who think every episode should have its own articles, and I believe certain editor from this discussion even said, and I quote, "Plots are encyclopaedic content, that alone is enough for me to support an episode article." This process was killed before it had a chance to prove itself. And I don't know what group of editors wants every article gone, but that isn't me, and I think my contributions to the contrary of that argument prove that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I appreciate that there are good faith concerns here, but this page still looks like a way to do an "end run" around the consensus process. For example, look here: Episodes of the active television show Hannah Montana were brought up to a "real" AfD in May 2007,[1] with generally split opinions on whether to keep or merge. Then this "Notability review" was held in June 2007, with no notice on the episode talkpages, and came up with a unanimous "Redirect All".[2] It appears to be simply a poorly-advertised discussion venue with a clear intent of a foregone conclusion. I can't support that kind of process. --Elonka 18:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
            • The notification of the episodes themselves was on the front page. The original template we were using would change from a "notability is not established tag" to a "A review is taking place over at .... please come join the discussion...." when the review took place. We only put notifications on the talk pages of the parent articles. The notification for the actual episodes was done on the front page, so any passerby, who didn't have the article saved on his/her watchlist would see the tag, see the link to the discussion, and come join.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
              • When I spot-checked the article at Bad Moose Rising, I saw no notification of discussion. All I saw was an "unreferenced" template, on something that was definitely not an "empty" article.[3] --Elonka 19:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the template we were using, you do know that right? The template that was being used to serve multiple purposes was deleted, so you won't see it on the page, not even in the history. As for the article itself. It contains a plot and a goof section (the "subplot" is still part of the "plot" as is the "aliases" which I don't even understand what that is...seems to be only understand by fans of that show...which shouldn't be the case). Goofs are unencyclopedic, and a page that contains nothing but a plot and a non-free image runs the high risk of being a copyright violation of the show. So, I don't see a reason why that page should not have been merged. Since the template at the top was not the template I was referring to (b/c it was deleted) I can't comment other than... you aren't going to see what I'm referring to in regards to a notification on the front of the page when the review takes place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I should note that this wasn't something the TV WikiProject developed. It was actually the other way around, where a community discussion was going on, and we were looking for a place to put these pages. We took two task forces of WP:TV that were pretty much dead and made them into a new project that was directly inspired by recent community activity. (WP:TVE) Furthermore, I specifically excluded a participants list/cat from this new task force to encourage the process to be even more open. Absolutely nothing about this situation comes close to an ownership issue. Aside from listing some guideline links, some advice, and the review listing itself, the project is nothing more than the open community of Wikipedian editors. And, as noted above, moving the review listing not only can be done, but it's a good idea (I wasn't too wild about making it a project subpage myself, simply because it seemed confusing. But again, that's something we use pagemove for, not deletion). -- Ned Scott 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
And Elonka, keep from making misleading comments such as these "There have been a group of editors who are adamantly against any episode articles on Wikipedia, for any reason" Not only is that not true, but some of us have even worked on making some episode articles become featured. There are many great examples of TV episode articles, and WP:EPISODE and WP:TVE even list them. There's more than those that have further potential, and all involved recognize that. I also find it completely inappropriate for you to be creating the false image of groups or sides for this matter (something I recall you doing in a past arbcom case). It's simply an attempt to make community efforts appear as some cabal. -- Ned Scott 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Although I can understand the view that this process is too bureaucratic, I also agree with the fact that there are far too many articles on individual episodes of TV shows. Such articles are never likely to be well-sourced, or to contain much beyond a plot summary and trivia. While my first instinct was to agree with the view that the mainstream processes (AfD and merge) can be used, I think there are problems with that. As pointed out above, an AfD nomination on an episode article will often be furiously opposed by a bunch of fans who don't understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and will end up as No consensus. Ultimately, although I understand the issues with WP:OWN, it's also true that the WikiProject Television regular editors are those who are most qualified to make intelligent and objective pronouncements on whether a TV-related article is notable enough for inclusion or not. As such, I don't think the formation of a de facto informal committee on the fate of such articles, as seems to have happened here, is necessarily such a bad thing. Waltontalk 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Update I've done some revisions to the review process that should address many concerns. For starters, the page has now been moved to Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review, which, by the time I was done with it, is basically Wikipedia:Television article review process moved to there. Instructions could be cleaned up some more, but discussion themselves are now held on the talk page of a parent article, with a link to that discussion being listed on the review page. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Simply renaming the page does not solve my concerns I state in the nomination, it doesn't make the process any more actionable nor consensual. Matthew 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I give your concerns no mind whatsoever. Your nomination is flawed and absurd. This, however, does solve concerns of other users who were supporting delete. -- Ned Scott 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry that sounded so harsh, but after having so many disputes with Matthew, it's pretty clear he will object to any situation that threatens even a single episode article. I do understand that other users do have valid reasons for their positions, and I hope what we have done, and what we are able to do, will address those concerns. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Too lazy to read the book above.—treybang me 22:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The nomination is misleading an inaccurate, so if you are supporting deletion based on that then you really don't have any argument. -- Ned Scott 22:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "Too lazy to read the book above"...that's a responsible editor if I saw one. The "book above" is the explaination and rebuttle of deletion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the page in question. I think it should be deleted. I am not obligated to read the novel. Also, keep your thoughts to yourself, Bignole. —treybang me 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not obligated, that's true, but if you want the closing admin to consider your view then you will need to actually give some attention to the situation. This is not a vote. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is supposed to be a vote. Heck, even RfA's.—treyjay–jay 05:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be a useful process. I'd like to see something similar for highways and other directory-type topics. -- But|seriously|folks  05:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page is just some sneaky means to delete content without having to get actual consensus for it. Everyking 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering the notification used, and the fact that discussions are now held on "List of episodes" talk pages (or other parent article), there simply is nothing sneaky about it. A new process might not be well known, but extra steps are being taken to include more people, even those we know will object to merging, etc. Did you know that the page has been changed so that discussions are on a more public and localized talk page? -- Ned Scott 08:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • And regarding reviews already completed, if you feel strongly enough about it, I'll help you set up a new review using the more public talk pages. -- Ned Scott 08:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Talk:24 (season 1)#24 episode review (season 1) has started, the first discussion to use the local talk pages. I invite everyone from this MfD to take a look at how the discussion goes. Also, episode articles for Hannah Montana, which were already reviewed, will be re-reviewed using Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes, sometime tomorrow. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eusebeus, Gwinva, I, Ned Scott, Bignole and Radiant. The review process is still in it's infancy and hasn't even been given a chance to grow and adapt. Matthew's nomination is an attempt to be disruptive, with NO assumation of good faith. To call this process "unhelpful" is to ignore the fact that articles with just a plot and a fair-use violation image shouldn't be here, in an encylopedia. Elonka's point that it is just a group of editors who oppose TV episodes is a sweeping generalisation and quite an insult to the effort and intent of the editors. This is a legitimate effort by hardworking editors, some of whom, like Ned Scott said, worked hard on other TV episodes to bring them up to a good standard. I would also like to point out that I am an outside editor, so the process has indeed brought in editors who have not been directly involved with episode articles and in that respect, successful. However, it does not mean that I want to see all the episode articles deleted, I simply want what's best for wikipedia. Seraphim Whipp 12:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Tim. Prune such creep everywhere. IMO this is at least if not more problematic at its present location as it was in the WikiProject location. With all due respect to the efforts of those involved in creating this. heqs ·:. 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've never understood why people think this is a diffcult to follow process but then perhaps that's because I've followed it from the beginning. It really is as simple as this though: 1.) Article doesn't show notability or references 2.) Article is tagged 3.) Article is reviewed. 4.) Outcome. If the process was shown to be simpler on its page, would that make any difference to your vote Heqs? Seraphim Whipp 14:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope. Just take a step back from your area of interest for a minute and think about it. There is nothing so special about this or that topic that it should need this. These kinds of processes would become insanely fragmented and contradictory across the project. heqs ·:. 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This page gives a mere guideline, shaped and imposed by a handful of people, more legitimacy and power than it deserves. Processes for merging/deletion already exists. It would be much more productive to improve the articles rather than deleting others' work. The JPStalk to me 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This sounds funny, since you proded a couple film articles I created a year ago. Hmm, why not improve those articles instead of deleting them?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This guideline simply has quotes borrowed from other guidelines and policies. You say it would be better to imrpove the articles, but the point of this is that some articles show no room for improvement because sources don't exist for them. We delete articles all the time; perhaps you think we shouldn't delete anything because we should try to improve them instead? Seraphim Whipp 14:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do think we should improve rather than delete when the subject is notable. (BTW, I don't think your tone, SWhipp, was rude at all! - thanks -- unlike Bignole, who has disappointedly made a couple of incivil edit summaries in the film articles to which he refers). Stubs encourage and invite people to expand upon them. The entire project is dependent upon that attitude! The JPStalk to me 14:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that they aren't notable, by Wikipedia definition. It seems to me that people are increasinlgyconfusing what they think notability is, and WP definition. Something is notable if "...it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Very few of these have this. It may be watched by millions, and constantly talked about, but according to our own guidelines and policies, it is not notable. As such, they have a place on fansites, or message boards, but none on Wikipedia. I  (said) (did) 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A second review has started in the time of this MfD. I invite everyone here to participate and/ or watch, to help them better understand what the reviews are like. See Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#2nd episode article review. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have not yet formed an opinion on whether this process is or is not a good idea - but if it is, it should obviously be kept as well as used, and if it is not, the page should nevertheless be kept as a lesson learned. So regardless, do not delete the page. >Radiant< 10:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Broaden the scope. Simply rename it Wikipedia:Articles for review, and list articles for which deletion may not be the answer. Take some of the weight off of WP:AFD which could now be used for articles which the nominator can 100% demonstrate should be deleted, rather than for articles which a nominator may not know what to do with. Let afd become used only for articles which cite no references, and AFR become for articles which have sources but there are concerns over the sources, or concerns as to notability, or issues of merging or moving. Merges and moves are becoming harder to make stick without strong consensus now, so this could be the ideal process to help develop such consensus. Hiding Talk 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yikes. Wasn't WP:PROD supposed to take the weight off AFD? AFD already is "Articles for review". Use it! heqs ·:. 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You are aware of the vast amount of episodes that have articles. If one were to AfD all that failed to establish notability, AfD would be so backlogged nothing would get done for months.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It also wouldn't work with the canvassing, the vote counting, the paranoia, the people that just cast out their opinions with no regard of WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS , and other stuff like that. TTN 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm aware that there are tons of borderline articles (not just TV episodes) and that AfD is and probably always will be clogged. If AfD is broken, fix it. Building another freeway won't alleviate congestion. Something along the lines of Hiding's suggestion is better than topically specialized processes though. Perhaps re-adopting the Wikipedia:Articles for discussion moniker and expanding on it would be a good idea. heqs ·:. 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary bureaucracy and procedure. Brought in to make complainers feel better about redirections despite support of existing policies and guidelines. 71.50.132.243 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That's the most true thing I've heard in any of these discussions. However, removing this process would just make the articles be AfD'd or redirected anyway, and then there would be even bigger problems. I  (said) (did) 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I actually believe it's more than that. -- Ned Scott 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see how people think that this process, which is so simple and straight forward, is a bureaucracy. I've set up two reviews in the last two days, and it was pretty much free-style. Aside from where the discussion takes place, and giving fair notice, there really aren't any rules for the review. It's a discussion, just like any other, that aims to develop a consensus. Having some structure to a discussion is not the same as a bureaucratic procedure, nor are such things bad simply for having structure. No offense, but some of you sound like a bunch of kids who don't know what the heck you're talking about, but want to sound smart and feel like they're having a real discussion. How many people who support deletion have actually taken the time to see how these reviews go? How many of them simply saw instructions and went "too confusing! WP:BURO!"? -- Ned Scott 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF. It's helpful in this kind of situation to assume people know what they're talking about rather than saying they act like children for the simple reason that they disagree with you. Try and keep things civil. 71.50.132.243 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
My comment is very civil, even if it does point out something negative about other people's arguments. I recognize that some people here have other concerns and are making valid points, but it is more than fair to say that others are just plain wrong in their logic. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong, Ever So Strong Delete - This is essentially a "Wikipedia Vigilantism" process page. It sets up a process ostensibly parallel to that of AfD, except it isn't subject to the direct, regular oversight of Wikipedia administration or even Deletion Review. On top of that it presents guidelines as though they were policy, and seems to imply that "lack of secondary sources = immediate deletion" for every article, always, no matter what. Just a quick reminder: WP:N is a freakin' guideline for a reason. Now philosophy issues aside, the only constructive thing this project offers is something that is already covered better and more equitably by AfD. The existing process is well known, well understood, and has built in checks and balances. I see no need for a parallel process, especially one that a) has no real teeth or sway anyway, other than a mob of like-minded editors threatening to revert war you to hell, and b) is essentially the same as an existing, officially supported process that's been working for years. Nip this in the bud now, before it turns into a nightmare. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 11:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability is a guideline because it's subject to change with time. What's notable for one article might not be notable for another article. Simply put, if you do not establish notability for any article, then it should not be on Wikipedia. The way to establish notability is through significant coverage by reliable sources. Thus, notability is intertwined with verifiability and reliable sourcing policies. Also, the ones threatening to "revert war..to hell" are the ones that disagree with the revert. The entire process is designed to find a way to relocate certain information, as people flood articles with trivia and fancruft that is not suitable for Wikipedia, but more suitable for a Wikia or other similiar sites. By your reasoning, what's the point of a peer review? An FAC is the same process, and you get promoted at the end of that one (if you've met all the criteria). Why even have a GAC? If nothing is equivalent in standards to an FA article, why reward articles with a title that just means "you aren't quite good enough, but here's a parting gift".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability can be established a number of ways other than through secondary sources. Certain works are notable enough that their notability is literally inherited by episode articles. (Case in point, Doctor Who) This is just an example, but you get my point. Just in case you don't though: there is no policy that says articles require secondary sources. Guidelines are not policy.
Secondly, I have no idea what point you're trying to make about revert war threats. The fact is, the only way this process can be enforced is by continual reverts to ensure the "decided upon" version of the article remains the current one. This is the Wikipedia equivalent of brute force, might-makes-right vigilante law, and Wikipedia is not an anarchy.
Finally, that is a very clever straw man but it doesn't apply. Designations are one thing, processes are another. Parallel processes need to be avoided because it adds a level of redundancy that makes oversight more difficult, especially when the new process is one not requested by (or even operated by) Wikipedia management. The only thing I forsee with this project is editor frustration, a sharp spike in complaints to the Administrators' Noticeboard, and a bunch of editors banned for edit warring. AfD exists and has been handling the pages this project targets just fine for years. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 12:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yuki, on a point of process, can you point to me where in the Deletion policy it says that AfD is the right venue for redirecting articles? If you wish actually to kill the earlier material & its edit history, then, yes, AfD is your stop. But as far as the above goes, no-one is saying anything beyond redirecting, without prejudice for article recreation pending the establishment of notability. Since the goal is not to expurgate the edit history, I don't get your point. unless I have misread the Deletion Policy. Eusebeus 12:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "inherited notability", that's a simple ploy to create an episode article because people want huge plot summaries and images galore. Verifiability is a policy, and I would personally challenge any episode that claims to have "inherited notability". Since you have to source (reliably) any challenable information, you have to have sources for notability. AfD would be completely bogged down if we AfD'd the thousands of episode articles in existence, because the vast majority (and I would be willing to bet my life on at least 90%...here's a sample case, 97% of the Smallville articles are nothing but a plot, an image (Copyvio anyone?), and some goofs/trivia) do not assert any notability. There are a good amount who do, namely the entire season 8 of The Simpsons, but go compare those episodes to every other..you'll find a stark difference. Things can be instantly notable, but even that requires sources to verify, but nothing is "inherited". "Inherited" is a way to say "I don't have to verify anything I don't want to, because it's implied". Sorry, you do have to verify it, via significant coverage. If you can't, then I'm sorry, you shouldn't be an article. Maybe later, something will happen and an episode will develop coverage by reliable sources, but since there is no deadline, there's no rush to create the articles in the hopes that they will one day be able to show notability. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. It isn't a paper encyclopedia, but that only means we allow things that wouldn't normally be found in a paper encyclopedia, not that we should write articles that are of substanially less quality, simply because we can. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity, and most of these episode articles can be merged into larger topics (i.e. season articles, or LOE articles). Why make 23 poor quality articles, when you can develop 1 article of much greater quality?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I was about to try and make about the same points as Bignole just did and when I hit edit I found his post. The concept of "inherited notability" can not be allowed to stand unchallenged because it amounts to an open-ended license to branch-off millions of articles. Why stop at episodes? Would a prop used in an episode inherit notability from the series? A costume? The guy who runs the honey wagon? I dread the idea that someone will create 130 episode articles linked from List of Mama's Family episodes. --Jack Merridew 12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired and I have minimal time to respond before I pass out, but let me just say this: you are confusing me saying that some subjects confer inherited notability with the (idiotic) idea that all subjects confer inherited notability. The point I made was that there are exceptions to the "secondary sources" part of WP:N; that was just one example. Inherited notability is not an original idea either, as WP:FICT outright states that certain sub-articles should be created when an existing article gets too long, but should otherwise be evaluated as part of the main article. I'd say that's pretty damn close to saying such articles possess inherited notability.
Oh, yeah, also before I pass out, the issue of "what to do about articles that you think should be redirected": it's called proposing a merge. If you actually use the templates and start up a discussion rather than just trying to brute force a merge through consensus can be established fairly easily, especially if you use the {{wider attention}} tag. That too is a process which has existed for years and works well; people just don't like to use it because it requires you to actually interact with other editors, rather than being able to say "the admin said so, now accept the decision or be banned." -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my post kept you up too late (meant sincerely, not sarcasticly). I was referring to the use of the term "inherited notability" as applied to tv show episodes; this is the context I've seen it used in. I'm glad to see it understood that there are limits to such inheritance . --Jack Merridew 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
First, I love this condescending tone you are taking with people. Let's clear something up, the vast majority of episode articles were not split from larger topics for any other reasoning than editors wanted a separate article. That didn't inherit notability, the parent article was not too large and needed to be split. Go look at the episode articles. Most do not have an real world content, except for the "who wrote/directed/starred" in the episode, which is easily covered in an LOE page or a season page...and better, because you can see who did it for multiple episodes. Articles that are supposed to be split off are done so because they are so comprehensive that it would be best for them to be separate. Now, the term "inherited notability" is not being thrown around in an effort to say that a topic has become so comprehensive that it should be split, but that an episode is notable simply because it came from a television show and no other reason besides that. Just because you understand that the "idea" of inherited notability stems from the concept that when an article becomes too long certain subjects should be split from it, doesn't mean that is the way it is understood (or at least being used) in the television community. About merging... (I'll get back, I have a work meeting). ...there was a reason it was decided to have it in a central location, for all articles. That was to improve unbiased opinions in what is obviously a controversial merge proposal. It doesn't matter if you have all the policy and guidelines in your favor; CANVASSing takes place to find enough like-minded editors to vote "oppose". I've seen it for AfDs, where an episode article had just about nothing in it, no sources, no established notability, the parent article wasn't too large to have taken it, original research and a nice large plot. It didn't get deleted. If it's a show that is a little more obscure, you can probably not run into that problem as much, but popular shows have lots of editors who believe that an episode should stand alone no matter what, and they will seek out as many editors as they can to come vote to keep the article, regardless of the problems that are presented. This review process left notification on not just all the related television show pages, but the general WP:TV and Village Pump, and other projects that didn't necessarily deal with any particular television show. The idea is to expand far enough to have as much unbiased discussion as possible. Oh, and I've been to the controversial merge pages, and left requests and not gotten a response, so that isn't an opinion either. ..In case you were wondering from my comments, my personal opinion is that not every episode needs or deserves its own article, but there are some than do (and I've worked on them).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You have a remarkable talent for constructing straw men. We're not talking majority, we're talking rare exception. This project does not allow for any exceptions, hence my point. Regardless how infrequently episode articles are blessed with "inherited notability", (ludicrously rare... Doctor Who is literally the only show I can think of that does so) this page presents a rigid, uncompromising stance on WP:FICT that is counter to the very nature of guidelines. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
One last thing, because I find it so... umm... well, words fail me, so here are yours:
AfD would be completely bogged down if we AfD'd the thousands of episode articles in existence, because the vast majority (and I would be willing to bet my life on at least 90%...here's a sample case, 97% of the Smallville articles are nothing but a plot, an image (Copyvio anyone?), and some goofs/trivia) do not assert any notability.
So, basically, your point is that because there's too much cleaning up to be done, we should just ignore the rules and delete 97% of the Smallville episode articles without using the previously established, well documented, standard process? Or, to paraphrase, "let's ignore all the rules when they aren't convenient." Allow me to respond:
No.
We do not get to ignore the rules when they become inconvenient. We don't get to skip over the process when it impedes our desire for immediacy. Just because you want to get things deleted quicker doesn't mean they should be deleted quicker. The process has a time limit associated with it for a reason, and that reason is to give as many editors as are willing adequate time to research an article and determine whether or not it should be deleted. I have seen, numerous times, articles that I swore were going to be deleted saved at the last minute by some observant editor who happened to find a swath of relevant sources. We should, never, ever rush something like deletion.
Now ignoring all that, let's look at this problem... with math! (Whee, math in the morning, isn't this fun?) Smallville has been running for, what, six seasons? Six seasons, 22 episodes per season, 132 episodes. (or so) Now look at your average AfD log, say July 5th: if you added every single Smallville episode to the AfD individually, it wouldn't even double the number of AfDs added per day. Factor in multi-article nominations (which, if what you claim about the Smallville articles is true, could easily be done) and you would add, maybe, 20 nominations to the list. (realistically, probably 6: one per season) Hardly something that will "bog AfD down."
In short, you've basically proven my point for me. The entire purpose of this project is to do an end-run around the rules for the sake of... well, who cares what it's for the sake of? (Immediacy, powerlust, free gold toilets... really doesn't matter) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, you interpreted that completely wrong. My point was that as a sample size, 97% of Smallville episode articles fail both the guideline, and V/RS policy with regard to their content. Not to mention the copyright violations on the images being used. Now, to apply that to what I was meaning. With the amount of episode articles in existence, I would be willing to bet that at least 90% were just like the Smallville articles, and if we went through an AfD it would take forever (but I'll explain how that interpretation is off in a second). What I wasn't condoning was the deletion of any article, as I do not see merit in deleting page histories for articles that may one day be able to satisfy guidelines and policies. There are multiple processes to perform. One can do an AfD, sorry, but Smallville isn't the only problem show, so your math is kind way off. Try 20+ episodes a season, for an average of 3 seasons (60 eps so far for those keeping track) and several hundred television shows, let's say 200...that's a low guess. That's about 12,000 articles, with low estimations of course. Now, we'll say that in a given month, AfD does about 100 articles a day (they aren't finished, but at least 100 a day are started). That's about 3000 articles a month that have an AfD started on them. Well, just those 12k television articles would take up 4 months worth of AfD space, alone. That doesn't include all the other articles on Wikipedia, and I'm using a generous estimate as there are shows that last longer than 3 seasons, and there are shows that have 12 eps a season, and some that have 24 eps a season. So, no, AfD is not an option. Only proposed mergers and redirects, and this process was meant to centralize them, basically modeling how AfDs take place (since there's a reason AfDs don't take place on the article talk pages) in one location, just separated by days. The reason it doesn't take place on the article talk page is written in my comment just above yours. The point of the process is to have better quality articles, not more articles of lesser quality. To do that, a discussion needs to take place where unbiased opinions can join in. You tend not to find that on a random television show's talk page, not even unbiased opinions of WikiProject Television members, as I'm a member and I don't follow every television show article (there are kind of a lot if you didn't pick up on that). But, if people can pass by and see that there is a general location where reviews are constantly occurring, it's much easier to find unbiased opinions than it is if you just hope someone looks on the talk page of a random television show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, the only argument you seem to be able to make is "AfD doesn't work fast enough." Ever think that the delay is in there by design? On top of that, you're talking about AfDing every individual episode article; I don't think you can say for any type of Wikipedia article that 12,000 articles of that type need to be AfD'd immediately. If there really were that kind of problem then more of those articles would have been AfD'd already. What you're talking about is a problem that nobody (except for you and a minority of other editors) can say exists. There's no evidence that there needs to be a separate process to take pressure off of AfD, because (and let's just call a spade a spade here) you know damn well that 90% of those 12,000 articles you've mentioned would survive an AfD with little to no difficulty. If that wasn't the case, some even vaguely perceptible number would have already have been AfD'd and deleted. (And recreated, and then speedily deleted, probably)
Bottom line: if there's a huge need for this process then AfD would be bogged down already. While there may be a loose confederation of editors at work on this project page who do think that nominating all the articles they want to would bog down AfD, there are still dozens of other editors out there who will just plain nominate something for deletion of they think it needs to go. Nobody's nominating huge, giant swaths of episode articles for AfD. It's not a problem. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, honestly? I would be thrilled to AfD these articles. The only problem is that the resulting firestorm would cause much more harm than good. And many people have said this is a problem. In fact, a great deal of opposers to this system agree that there is a problem. They just disagree that this is the way it should be handled. They would probably survive the AfD, yes. But not because they should. They would because the editors who created them would staunchly defend them, and canvass for them. They would also survive because a growing number of Wikipedian's are deciding that vast amounts of articles should contravene policy. I  (said) (did) 07:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm really confused as to what your point is, or rather how it relates to this process needing to stay around. What I'm reading from your reply is that you basically want to establish a new, less visible form of AfD, as nominating episode articles for AfD won't give you the "proper" result due to consensus being... wrong? No, that can't be right. Really, can you rephrase that? -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 08:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is being deleted. Nothing nothing nothing nothing. Therefore, it's not AfD. This is not less visible, it's perfectly visible. Three sets of people are notified, the people who watch the specific article page, the people who watch the page it would be merged to, and the people who watch the parent article. And it's no less visible than AfD, it's just less heard about, which is not our problem, as it has been advertised appropriately. And the reason nominating for deletion wouldn't work is because even if we only nominated 200 articles, much less than 12,000 it would not only bog it down, but garner wide attention, and a huge, massive debate on why these articles should be allowed to contravene policy. Although, I'm tempted to do it just because so many people have said we should. That, at least, would force wide discussion on the matter. And consensus being wrong is a whole other can of worms. I  (said) (did) 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted and enforced merging are damn near the same thing, depending on how the merge is accomplished. The other thing I'd like to point out is this: if you think nominating a bunch of episode articles for deletion would cause an uproar, what do you think is going to happen if you were to run those same articles through a non-binding process that is not subject to direct administrative oversight? (My prediction would be massive edit wars, personal attacks, and an ArbCom request or seven) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there would've been consensus, so there's really nothing there. Administrative oversight is not needed for merging, since it can be undone, whereas deletion cannot without an admin. And there's going to be an uproar pretty much however this is done, short of nothing. And at least this way is the least offensive, i.e it can be undone without deletion review. I  (said) (did) 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - as said above, even if you disagree with the process, deleting the project-space page isn't the right solution. This seems like it may have promise in dealing with a problem of substantial scale. If it doesn't work, we'll learn from it and try something new. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • delete on the practical consideration that MfD is a poor place to make policy. . I seem to have seen discussion on this in about 4 or 5 other laces as well. The unfortunate impression seems to have been given that this is part of an effort to promote a particular attitude towards WP articles in these topics, an attitude sometimes supported by the comments at AfD that content of the sort considered should not appear in WP, & this is finally reaching the ears of the non-habbitual attenders, and is of course, provoking the reaction. Frankly, I do see it as an attempt to do gradually what wider consensus might not necessarily approve--Probably the most realistic way to handle this is an discussion on revising WP:NOT. I think doing it this way is unwise. My own view on the underlying issue is that plot information is useful, encyclopedic if kept within the limits of what is needed to understand the show, that 2 or 3 paragraphs about an half-hour episode are not violating copyright, and that it is realistic to expect discussion of the plot to only gradually make its way into these articles. I also think that separate episode articles are a very poor way of arranging it, and might even support such a project if I thought it would not destroy valuable content. DGG (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If plots are the only thing you think would be destroy that are "valuable", then I don't see a problem since writing a plot comes a dime a dozen. Anyone can write it, so it technically isn't "lost", and since it's merely a proposal for merging and redirecting, someone can easily go in an grab the plot if it happened to be really well written. The plot itself is not encyclopedic. Plots are meant to add context to real world information, and if you have no real world information then what is the point of the plot? Wiki should not be a substitute for watching a show, and TV Guide, TV.com, and IMDb (among other sites) already provide synopsese and plots for just about every television episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 11 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.