Wikipedia:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several editors have expressed support for the idea that objective criteria are necessary for establishing TV Episode Notability. This page is the beginning of an effort to define objective criteria. For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that TV episodes do not inherit notability from being a part of a notable series. This is a contentious issue, but this page is not the place to discuss it. Comments indicating that the discussion is useless because the notability is obvious will be quickly and ruthlessly deleted.

This is intended to be a list of criteria that establish sufficient notability to warrant an individual article. Meeting any one of them is sufficient. If no criteria is met, then the episode is presumed not to warrant its own article:

Contents

[edit] Criteria 1: Has been nominated for individual awards by a notable organization

An episode is presumed notable if it has been nominated for an individual award by a notable organization. The award nomination must specifically indicate the episode in question by name.

[edit] Discussion

I think this one is obvious. An Emmy, Golden Globe, Hugo, Annie, etc. means the episode is individually notable. How to define a "notable organization" eludes me, and I would like to tighten that up.Kww (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't go with "presumed notable" language, but instead "evidence of". The test should be a flexible balancing rather than a presumption. --Lquilter (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, if it has the language change suggested by Lquilter. For notable organization, I think it would be important to define that some, particularly for shows like documentaries, which have their own sets for awards often not recognized by the general public. But that's another whole issue :P Also should be an award where it was specifically for that episode and not a case of the episode simply being representative of the series (such as best costuming where the costumes are used in every episode). Collectonian (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • About how to define a "notable organization" I think we can safely apply WP:N here. If the organization receives press conference, and some 3rd party talk about it, that should do. Samuel Sol (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Awards help notability, but they cannot hold an article on their own. If the only available information is the award(s), it will be better placed in a section of the main article, season article, or episode list. TTN (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think winning that an episode winning a major award does help the episode establish notability. In my opinion, a "notable organization" is one which would merit an article in Wikipedia, meaning it has been discussed in multiple independent, reliable sources. A fangroup giving an award for "Best Simpsons episode of the year" would not be notable, and neither would the award recipients. Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems very reasonable and while TTN raises a valid point about an article where theoretically no other info is available something like that should be handled on a case by case basis. I also agree with the points above about definition of a notable organization though perhaps we should somehow note that the organization should be seperate from the work of fiction i.e. if there was a notable Star Trek fan club that awarded an episode as "Best episode in the history of the Universe" it might not necessarily indicate notability though such an episode would likely be notable in its own merit for other reasons. Stardust8212 21:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • An award from a notable organisation or publication should give enough reason to believe that the episode is notable. Like TTN said that if that's the only information available then it would probably best be merged. Having said that, if an episode has won an award then it should not be merged without serious discussion and attempt to find more information. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, with Lquilter's language. I believe LQuiilter's language, and TTN's caution go hand in hand. If, for example, an episode's only notability were a nom and there was no additional content beyond the nomination, then it can be merged. However, a win, with relevant articles about the category, makes for a keep, to me. ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Torc2 (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is sizeably enough, because receiving one award and having no other information about the episode would not given an article enough information to support separate existence. I think this is a good criteria to have to say that awards are a good indicator of notability, but I believe we should have a "but" in there to indicate that satisfying this criteria might not be a fool proof way of ensuring an article's existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think winning a major award is a significant indicator of notability while a mere nomination certainly is not, in itself, sufficient. A winner will likely get coverage in reliable sources, while an also-ran will get a trivial mention. WP#PLOT + an Infobox + an award cite is not an encyclopaedic article; a fully developed article is. I also think major needs to be a high-set bar; for example, I've had to look-up "Annie Award" (I suppose I should have figured it out). and no trek-club awards.) --Jack Merridew 11:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is a good indicator for notability. What else the article might contain is mostly the differences between a stub and a full-fleshed article. Beyond the scope of notability as such. I would suggest "notable organizations" to be long-established organizations with considerable attention paid to their award ceremonies. If we have an organization like the British Academy of Film and Television Arts which gives awards since 1947 it is notable. If the organization was active for one or two years and then seems to have evaporated into thin air, their existance was not notable. Dimadick (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria 2: Has had elements of the episode nominated for individual awards by a notable organization

An episode is presumed notable if it has had elements of the episode nominated for such an award (i.e. "best supporting actor" for a guest-starring role).

[edit] Discussion

This one's a bit trickier. If an episode is nominated for "Best Score" or "Best Lighting", is the episode notable? I would like to put in a stipulation that the article must discuss the aspects of the show that were nominated for the award, but don't know how to phrase it.Kww (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined towards saying its evidence of, but shouldn't be a sole criteria. If that's the only thing that can be said about the episode beyond plot, discuss it in the main series article as it also does apply to the series. If, however, one can present a well-sourced discussion that spans more than just a line or two about what made it get nominated/won, then that can be notability. Collectonian (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)]
  • I think so, as it characterizes the work done on that episode. If, the Emmy for example, chooses to award Episode X, instead of Episode X-1 for "Best Lightning", I think it goes that the Episode X worked better in that regard than the rest of the season, and that is notable. "Best Score" is even more straight forward, as each episode has a different one. Samuel Sol (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can't we fold this one in to the awards, above, with a little bit of clear language? Especially if we note that awards are not presumed but merely evidence of notability, then awards for the episode as a whole are stronger evidence than awards for specific performances or constituent aspects of the show. --Lquilter (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • They do help notability, but they do not establish it. If a lighting award is the only available information, it is not enough to establish an article. It can be included within the main article or a season article. TTN (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this depends on the award. If the award is for guest star, I think that establishes the notability of the person, and not the episode, especially since some guest stars are recognized for a multiple-episode story arcs. Unless an independent reliable source discusses the reasons why the episode won a technical award, I don't think this is enough to establish notability on its own. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This seems reasonable to me, I think initially the notability issue could be kept rather loose and tightened if it were being used too liberally so I think for now it is reasonable to include this criteria and see what happens. Once again this requires some objective interpretation on a case by case basis. Question: Would it be useful to include examples of where each criteria may or may not apply? It might make it easier for us to define since we're not all necessarily thinking the same things then we could all say "Oh, yes, for this it's correct but that one isn't" and perhaps better focus our thoughts?. I don't know if anyone else would find it useful. Stardust8212 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Examples rarely, if ever, hurt.Kww (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Example: "Parasites Lost" won an Emmy for "Individual Achievement in Animation" for the storyboard artist. Is this evidence of notability as defined by this criteria? Stardust8212 23:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    I would think so.Kww (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a tough one because it would depend on the exact circumstances in my opinion. The award would have to be for something very specific about the episode such as (but not only) writing or direction. A win rather than just a nomination would probably mean there's more information available to source the article. I'd say that the episode is notable for winning an award for an aspect of its production, and it's notable if it's nominated and it includes critical analysis by a reliable source because of it. If there's just a single line in the article saying it's nominated, it should have to meet another criteria too. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is tougher, and I think our standard must account for the coverage. If Gaffers and Grips runs a feature on the Lighting winner's techniques, and that's incorporated, then even that is enough, and I think the esoteric nature of the notability, I.E. big fish, small pond, still makes for a potentially interesting article, and I'd support a Keep vote were the hypothetical article AfD'd. But if all we can say is 'won best lighting Emmy 1983', then that goes into the list of episodes. to summarize, Notability in these instances is directly proportionate to the context, and the burden is on the 'keep' side to expand it. ThuranX (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If we're not going to have an article on Sound in episode 14 of some series, then yes, this is sufficient notability. Torc2 (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This one's a lot slipperier. Again, for a win it helps, but a nom — no. If there is sourced supporting coverage, that may be sufficient, but that's a different criteria. --Jack Merridew 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a weaker criterion. I can see awards for a guest-staring actor establishing notability for the actor and the fictional character he/she portrayed in the series. Major or minor. I can see awards for technical aspects establishing notability for the people engineering them. But an entire article based on a single aspect? Dimadick (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria 3: Has reached an unusual peak of ratings

An episode is presumed notable if reached an unusual peak of ratings, such as the final episode of M*A*S*H.

[edit] Discussion

I'd like help in defining "unusual peak of ratings". Is the best-rated episode of a show featuring midgets ever aired on the Lifetime Channel notable? I think not, but don't know how to phrase it.Kww (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "Ratings" is too specific to original broadcast. Especially as media distribution formats are in significant flux right now, I would change this to reflect something more generic to distribution, and include examples; e.g., high broadcast ratings; high downloads; etc. --Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Unusual peak" -- may be a bit vague. "Record-setting"? That's also vague. Hmm. I don't have great ideas right now. Also, like everything, this has to be documented; some things are more obvious or have documentation built in, but this one may need some specific language about who and how "unusual peaks" or "records set" or whatever standard is established, is met. --Lquilter (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I really don't like "presumed notability". I like "evidence of notability". --Lquilter (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this one is far too subjective to be a sole criteria. Maybe additional notability when combined with others, but alone, not enough. Collectonian (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless it's something like "X gets 100,000,000 viewers", that isn't enough to establish anything. Documented record breaking does help assert it. TTN (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you run the risk with this of "American Idol episode 1 is the most watched broadcast episode ever!" and then a week later "American Idol episode 3 is the most watched broadcast episode ever!" If an episode holds a ratings record for only a week, is it inherently notable? I don't think so, but others could argue that it is. If the episode is truly notable, I think reliable sources might mention the ratings and then explain WHY the numbers were so high. That explanation, in a reliable independent source, would likely be enough to presume notability. A simple note that the episode broke the ratings record should not. Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that High Ratings is no indicator of specific notability. Stupid 'very special episodes' and hype could artificially inflate a crap show, which then loses to American Idol next week, and crashes and is cancelled. Further, as more and more people have TVs, this will automatically continue to rise. However, the largest ever audience for a finale or premiere may be notable, depending on the coverage. I'm thinking of the M*A*S*H Finale, for one. ThuranX (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A "peak" is not necessary. Raw numbers of viewers absolutely are sufficient. I don't buy the argument otherwise, that attracting a million viewers doesn't prove anything. If I were to say "this event will attract the attention of a million people", it's a notable event. Torc2 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Simply stating that some people watched something that was on TV does not prove that it is notable, that's akin to claiming every episode is notable simply because some people watched it. It may be an interesting fact to include in a complete article but doesn't prove something is notable. Stardust8212 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Popularity != Notability — can't support this at all. If there is significant sourced coverage of why the ratings were high, mebbe, but that's another criteria. --Jack Merridew 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Poor wording here. This way we can keep articles on an episode of a second-string series which saw ratings go from its regular c. 60,000 viewers to 100,000. But not episodes of series with ten times the amount of viewers because there were no sudden peaks. Dimadick (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria 4: Achieved other notoriety due to an unusual impact on the real world

An episode is presumed notable if it has achieved other notoriety due to an unusual impact on the real world (the "seizure-causing" episode of Pokemon, the Trapped in the Closet episode of South Park, Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown, etc).

[edit] Discussion

I think that "unusual impact" will cover nearly all cases where IAR would get invoked: if it causes an unusual squabble between Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, the disintegration of the American Family Association, or anything like that, this one gets it.Kww (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed and probably the best criteria for notability, again presuming the notoriety can be well sourced and doesn't consist of fan outrage against the episode or events.Collectonian (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this language needs tightening. Maybe with examples. Also, fan hubbub is certainly going to be an unusual impact, and I think justifiably so -- but we will need criteria in order for this to not become a massive exception that swallows the rule. --Lquilter (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I really don't like "presumed notability". I like "evidence of notability". Especially where we've already got something in there that is pretty subjective ("unusual impact"), I don't think we should have an presumption. --Lquilter (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as it is documented in real sources, that is the best way to establish notability. Though, if it's just a sentence or two, it may not be enough to do anything depending on the context of the information. TTN (talk)
  • I think this is unnecessary. The only real way to judge whether an episode had real-world impact is to see if it got extended real-world reliable, independent source coverage. If it did get widespread reliable independent source coverage (and not just passing coverage), it is notable, regardless of why it got the coverage. Even fan outrage, if presented in a reliable, independent source (not a blog/forum/etc) and covered in-depth could qualify as evidence of notability. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think anything falling in this category would also fall under Proposed Criteria 7 in that if it made an impact it would only prove such an impact through coverage in RS. For that reason this criteria seems unnecessary and I can only imagine it creating controversy and wikilawyering. Stardust8212 21:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Overall support. There may be exceptions and caveats, but overall, Hear hear! ThuranX (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Torc2 (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, but conditionally re significant, reliable, and independent source — which notoriety often entails. I'm really looking to Criteria 7, below. --Jack Merridew 12:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse conditionally. What we have to be weary about are episodes that "cause a stir" one night and then are never heard of again. We'd be falling into recentism by saying, "oh, so-n-so talked about it one night so that makes it automatically notable". Well, if they only talked about it in one location, and that was for 15 minutes, it may not be as notable as is needed. It's certainly an important aspect of the episode that should be noted somewhere, but unless it's reached out beyond a single source, then I think it would need to be discussed as to whether or not it can actually support an article by itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This criteria should automatically establish notability, not presume it. The Pokemon episode attracted international attention. There are not that many which can truly accomplish that one. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria 5: Discussed in academic or trade contexts

An episode is presumed notable if it has gotten substantial coverage in trade or academic contexts, specifically excluding episode guides and DVD commentaries. This specifically excludes inclusion in any section of any publication that routinely lists program summaries or reviews of most programs, i.e. the channel guide section of TV Guide, soap opera guides. It also excludes any reviews in books or publications devoted to that particular series; i.e. being listed in a The Simpsons episode guide does not convey unique notability to an episode of The Simpsons.

[edit] Discussion

Loosest of the bunch, and I would like to tighten it.Kww (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Academic and trade really need to be split. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it should be looser for academic publications. If it's received academic study then that is strong evidence of notability, and we don't need to have higher standards for episodes than for any other works or subjects of academic study. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The language on "books or publications devoted to that particular series" really needs clarity. There are books & publications that are basically put out in collaboration with creators of the series; those are not "independent". And there are books and publications that are scholarly, and those are independent and strong evidence of notability. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mostly agree, with some of the caveats the others mentioned. Academic contexts should not, of course, include a college students thesis, but actual academic books, peer-reviewed journals, etc. For trade, I agree with exclusion of the channel/episode guide sites and books and DVD commentaries. Also should include fan sites. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, there needs to be a reference to WP:RS, which talks about how to evaluate sources: peer review and university presses (which have academic editors or peer review) are highest; dissertations are good, but student theses less so; and so on. --Lquilter (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'm assuming you mean that fan sites should be included in the contexts that are excluded… right? --Jack Merridew 12:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I really don't like "presumed notability". I like "evidence of notability". --Lquilter (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as the information is substantial enough (not a trivial footnote mention), it should generally be fine. TTN (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • although the language may be vague, I'd argue that a show which struggles with ratings yet is highly regarded critically and by its' peers has amazing potential to influence later shows ,and if that can be demonstrated by juxtaposing Neilsens against trade papers, all the better. Sports Night comes to mind..ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. If the industry itself recognizes it, it's notable. This isn't that different from getting an award; it just happens in a different order. Torc2 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse this as well, as a subset of 7. Karanacs (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lquilter has great points about the need for distinction between academic and trade contexts. Trade journals and such have much more of a vested interest in the business; they may be independently owned, but they're still in show business. I also endorse Lquilter's concerns re "presumed notability" vs "evidence of notability" on all criteria here. --Jack Merridew 12:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. TTN captured my thoughts on it, which is my thoughts on all the criteria, and that's "is it enough information". I've seen plenty of articles where the evidence of notability was based on passing mention in sources. This ends up creating these one line sentences like, "Episode X has a theme of Yada Yada.<source>". There's no context to any of it because it was only mentioned in passing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A good idea. But Lquilter makes some good points on forming a hierarchy of acceptable sources for such kind of notability. Dimadick (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Criteria 6: Strong influence on subsequent works

Homages, remakes, or influences on other works — where acknowledged by the creator or widely recognized by relevant scholarship — may be evidence of notability.

[edit] Discussion

  • The matter of artistic influence should be relevant. Works that made little commercial splash, but over time became influential to creators, should be acknowledged. There's lots of films like that, and I'm sure there are probably a lot of TV episodes, too, but I'm just less familiar with the scholarship. --Lquilter (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • May be evidence of, but I don't think it should be a sole criteria and it certainly needs plenty of caution that this does not include "pop culture" type references where X episode was mentioned in another show, or this episode played in the background here, etc etc. or the other IMDB type trivia people love to copy/paste into article. I would think, though, that actual homages, remakes, and significant influences are likely to be rare for single episodes versus the full show. Collectonian (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    I think certain scenes or plots aren't exactly "rare" but certainly we're not going to see every episode in a series parodied/homaged/etc. You're absolutely right that mere "references" shouldn't count. Language should be tightened to clarify. --Lquilter (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of giving this a title. I like this one, because I think it yields to the argument that an artistic work should be judged in an artistic context. It also gives us a criteria that allows some of the really famous Twilight Zone and Dallas episodes that are obviously notable, but didn't fit will under previous criteria.Kww (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    thanks! i fixed capitalization. --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as it's more than trivia, it should be fine. TTN (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is relevant and when well sourced can be evidence of notability, many of these will also fall under criterion 7. Stardust8212 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is Classics, and true classics will have good sources for that status. It's all about significant, reliable, independent coverage that is not trivial. I was thinking the original Twilight Zone as I read this, and there is was, already mentioned. So, yes, with the sources. --Jack Merridew 12:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, if it can be proven with reliable sources that it was the intention of the people to pay homage, reference, etc etc. The weakest is remakes, because I've seen some trashy movies remade simply because the film maker who remade the film liked it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think this is meant to apply to the works that are homages to whatever, it is for the work the homages are to (or remakes, or influences). Allowing notability to be coattailed is a bad idea. --Jack Merridew 06:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    Right. It's also not for works simply dedicated to such-and-such. If a director says, "TV episode X was a tremendous influence on my work Y. The lighting and camera angles were genius, and the groundbreaking pace of plotting, and the use of a shock ending..." etc. --Lquilter (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, with the clarifications suggested by Collectonian. Those elements are the true influence of an episode. Dimadick (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Criteria 7: Discussed extensively in reliable third-party sources

An episode may be notable if the episode itself has been discussed extensively in reliable third-party sources. The discussion must consist of more than a plot summary, character/actor listing, and release details, and must be more than a trivial or passing mention. Blogs, fansites, forums, and personal websites are generally not considered reliable sources and thus cannot be used to establish notability.

[edit] Discussion

  • I'm proposing this criteria. It is pretty much a restating of WP:SOURCES, and should account for areas of notability that we can't think of right now. Karanacs (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep. So obvious we all forgot it.Kww (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't forget! It's basically the academic & trade publication info above. So, if we like this formulation better, then I suggest the academic & trade publication info become discussion of examples of how to apply. --Lquilter (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The most basic of the basic, certainly applies here as everywhere else on wikipedia. Stardust8212 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Only thing that matters. Notability is verifiable, as is the lack thereof. Significant quantities of independent reliable source material verify it, the lack thereof verifies that it is not present. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We have a winner. --Jack Merridew 12:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Good criteria, though we may want to explain whether "extensively" is "extensively in the source" or through "extensive sources".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    go with both for sure-fire notability. --Jack Merridew 06:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a catch-all for every kind of episode. Dimadick (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Criteria 8: Series pilot or premiere

The pilot episode of a series is generally considered to be notable.

[edit] Discussion

I'm not even sure what my own opinion on this topic is but it warrants discussion. This was originally suggested by (I think) User:I back in the days of WP:TV-REVIEW as a sort of compromise with the episode article creators. Is this a common practice worth continuing? Stardust8212 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I would say that they're worthy of more time to establish notability, but they're not going to always be notable. TTN (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this one is automatic. Yes, likely a new prime time show will have reviews of the first episode, so maybe there's a strongly likelihood of notability, but no guarantee. --MASEM 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're going with series pilot or premiere, what about series finale? I can see the merit in those, but are people going to say season premiere and finale, also? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not as an automatic pass as notable. The first episode of the Gong Show doesn't automatically deserve its own article. Torc2 (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't be automatic for pilot or finale. Not all are notable and it shouldn't be presumed that they are just because it was the first episode. Not all series start with a notable, well discussed premiere and indeed I think most just kinda slide in with the only mentions being "network X has these news series coming this fall." Premieres and finales should meet the same requirements as any other episode with no extra presumption of notability given. Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not as instant inclusion, but I would say that a general rule of thumb would be to give extended time for these articles given that many pilots nowadays are getting coverage in third-party sources (look at how much coverage the Sarah Connor Chronicles have gotten over the past year). The problem is, that many times much of what gets covered ends up turning into generalized show information, and less about the specific episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the worst criteria yet. We automatically presume notability for its placement in a series history? Why? Why not the 10th or 100th episode while we are at it? Dimadick (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a gimme — they may worth more attention when looking for sources. Up to editors to choose where they wish to focus their efforts. --Jack Merridew 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In some series, these may be more likely to be notable, because they get more press coverage or whatever, but they are certainly not per se notable. Any notability that premieres or finales (or crossovers or season finales or Very Special Episodes) get can be sourced under other criteria without specifying some mechanical "finales or premieres" test. Such a test would certainly net a lot of crap episodes. --Lquilter (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have always supported allowing more leeway for series premiere articles. I'm not sure I fully understand the purpose of this page, (are we creating criteria that grant automatic notability?) but I support the principle that premiere episode articles be given more time to expand than other, regualar articles would, but not an indefinite amount of time, or an automatic pass. As for season premieres and finales, I do not support allowing them extra time, as they aren't particularly important (if a certain one is, it will meet another criterion). As for series finales, I lean more towards allowing extra time as with series premieres, but could be swayed either way. seresin || wasn't he just...? 03:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My impression is that we are trying find stuff to mimic WP:MUSIC in that these are items that are "probably notable" but still require the inclusion of sourced notability to be truly notable. So there's no automatic notability being made here, just episodes that likely will merit individual coverage. --MASEM 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • That doesn't make sense. If they still require independant sources regardless of what criteria they meet, then what's the point of this list? If the independant sourcing is the criteria for inclusion, then these criteria mean nothing. seresin || wasn't he just...? 03:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, for older articles we'll need to reevaluate them all, but when talking new articles, if it fits any of the suggested ones besides #7 here (the third-party sources one, aka the extension of standard notability criteria), it is reasonable to create an article on it and give it time to find references to support it; but if the new article fails any of these, there's a stronger onus on the creators to find sources to support its notability. Ultimately all articles require sources, but this seems to describe what is acceptable in the short term and should be given some leniancy towards before merging away. --MASEM 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
          • If it fits any criterion (except this one), it is automatically notable, since each of the requirements would grant notability regardless of what these criteria have to say. As for old articles, that's something that needs to be discussed. How are they going to be reviewed (based on whatever criteria are ideally decided)? In a formal, centralized location? Or on talk pages? Will there be any organization of the reviews? seresin || wasn't he just...? 03:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
            • We are not saying that by meeting any of these criteria (save #7) that any episode is notable; only that , given past experience and knowledge with episodes, meeting these criteria will likely result in an article that, in time, will have appropriate sourcing to demonstrate it's notability - thus, reasonably, they get a temporary pass at having to meet notability requirements compared to any other article, but at some point, they still need to have this. If, for some reason, an episode gets a major award and gets absolutely no coverage at all, then it may need to be merged back to an episode. Ideally, that should never happen because of these criteria.
            • For old episodes, I'm seeing if first there's agreement to do this - I have a feeling there will be some resistance but if we set good notability requires and follow up with complete re-evaluation, we will help satisfy several editors on both sides of this disagreement. Ned Scott suggested re-energizing WP:TVE as a task force for this, once both this RFC and the ArbCom case are dealt with. --MASEM 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
              • I wasn't clear, sorry. If an episode has been nominated for an award, discussed in academic or trade contexts, has been reviwed et al., those things make it notable. It doesn't need leeway, it is already notable. seresin || wasn't he just...? 05:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Something we need clarity on. My feeling is that the people that claim that episodes of notable series are inherently notable aren't 100% wrong. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that they aren't notable enough to warrant mention in an episode list ... they just don't inherit enough to justify a stand-alone article. I think the goal is to determine what distinguishes "notable enough to mention" vs. "notable enough to support an article."Kww (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Criteria 9: Has been critically reviewed in reliable third-party sources

An episode is notable if it has been critically reviewed in (multiple) reliable, third-party sources. - I withdraw this now that #7 covers this aspect and more. --MASEM 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This may be a split from the academic/trade one, but critical reception is near universally considered appropriate for notability. "Critically" means more that just a passing grade. "Multiple" may or may not be necessary. --MASEM 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't distinguish this one from 7.Kww (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Criteria 10: Has reliable development information

An episode is notable if it has development information from those those involved in the work (writers, actors, directors, etc.); such information may be from commentary or from interviews, but should always be describing the work after its premiere release; self-published sources may be used, but care should be taken to understand the reliability of the source before using them.

[edit] Discussion

This is a point of contention in the WP:FICT rewrite, but generally seems acceptable; such information, while not a third-party, can be considered a "Secondary source". The only caveat I would add to this is that alone, development information is not sufficient for notability but can help strength it - however, I cannot think of a case where there has been development information and not have other notable aspects in place, but you never know. --MASEM 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Not sufficient to establish notability ... people writing about and discussing work that they have been personally involved with may give material that will flesh out an article, but it can't justify creating one in the first place.Kww (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the only criterion so far where I wouldn't give a blanket agree. It opens a can of worms for TV shows that have audio commentaries for all episodes, most of which are otherwise pretty much ignored by the media and by fans (necessary for article maintaining and improvement). Also, the current wording encourages just the existence of development information, not the presence of such in the article, and the proposal is too vague about the amount of development information to establish notability. I do however agree with Kww that development information is great for fleshing out articles, and when development information exists, there are also usually some reviews by secondary higher-profile sources so that the other notability criteria can be used. – sgeureka t•c 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Production info can significantly enhance an article that otherwise might have only questionable notability (i.e. Criteria 2 only with little other info about reception) however I'm not convinced that by itself this could be sufficient for notability. An example might be an episode of Futurama, which has commentary for every episode, where reception information is not readily available. See "Kif Gets Knocked Up a Notch" for an example of an article with some sourced production information but not much else to build on. If there are other RS I haven't tracked them down yet. Stardust8212 01:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Development info has nothing to do with notability. It might be the deciding factor to move to a separate article if including all the information makes the parent article cluttered and unreadable. Torc2 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Development and production information alone can not establish notability, particularly if its something the developers have done for many if not all of their episodes. Production details do, of course, enhance the article if the episode has notability per the other criteria. Collectonian (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this, as I think it is contrary to WP:SOURCES/WP:SELFPUB (a policy). More specifically, the article is not based primarily on such sources. and self-published ... sources are largely not acceptable. ... Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, which I don't think will be the case here. Karanacs (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This criteria would seem to suggest that if I make a short film, and then provide audio commentary describing everything I did to create that short film, then that means my short film would be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. To me, production information doesn't say anything about coverage of the episode. It says something bothered to let us know how they made it (which is really nice), but it's all coming from a primary source (typically).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For once I agree with Bignole. With this one we could end up with a flood of articles on episodes of non-notable shows and creators. Merely on the existence of their own commentary on their work. Dimadick (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can't support this (and fear for what's going on w/WP:FICT). Soon enough all episodes will have alt audio tracks on the DVDs and other shite on disc 2. This is promotion and sales-bait, not notability. --Jack Merridew 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Production information is simply not evidence of notability. Production information is certain relevant in a notable episode, and reliable sources of that information can and should be cited, but they are not themselves notable. (To the extent that independent third-party sources describing production exist, the existence of those sources helps fulfill the need for published information about the work. But I would point out that a lot of "The making of Work X" are not really "independent" -- they're often made by or in collaboration with the production company, and serve as de facto promotions for the work itself, sequels of the work, or licensed products related to the work.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Criteria 11: Meets Wikipedia:Verifiability

There is at least one third party source which covers the article topic and contains enough material to write two paragraphs or more.

[edit] Discussion

  • I'm concerned that this makes a bias against stubs, or that it sounds biased against stubs. Of course the source could contain the information and it simply hasn't been written into the article yet but perhaps a better phrasing is possible. I also have concerns that a source which provides for two paragraphs of plot synopsis would technically meet this criteria and I think that would result in a large number of plot-only articles which really doesn't help solve the problems of WP:NOT#PLOT. I like the idea behind it, yes any article should be verifiable, but I'm not sure I could support this wording. Stardust8212 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In what way is it biased against stubs? I'm not really interested in wiki-lawyering WP:PLOT, since that has nothing to do with what we're nominally doing here. If you're attempting to triabgulate a fine position from a large number of policies, I would suggest you instead use those policies. Hiding T 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here because people will wiki-lawyer over this, I think it sounds biased against stubs, as in, the people who continually claim that plot-only articles are stubs which should be allowed to grow will also claim that this is biased against articles which don't have a two full paragraphs and therefore are stubs. I agree, we should be able to just use the current policies and guidelines but that simply isn't working right now. Stardust8212 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Then I will point those people to Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Stub, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Hiding T 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Specifically highlighting:
          1. if there are reliable sources with enough information to write about a subject, then that subject is notable and those sources can verify the information in the Wikipedia article. If you cannot find reliable sources (such as newspapers, journals, or books) that provide information for an article, then the subject is not notable or verifiable and almost certainly will be deleted. So your first job is to go find references.
          2. When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted.
          3. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.
          4. Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is subversive and in many cases, a form of disruption. It usually involves improper use of (or appeal to) a policy, to purposefully derail or disrupt Wikipedia processes, to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance. Examples of gaming include (but are not limited to) Wikilawyering.
        • Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Criteria 12: Fill in the blank

[edit] Synthesis

This is an effort to combine the majority opinion on all the above into a coherent text. Please review and comment.

The primary criterion for determining sufficient notability of a television episode to have a distinct article devoted to it is the same as it is for all things in Wikipedia: direct and detailed examination in multiple reliable third-party sources. In terms of what is appropriate for distinguishing a particular episode as being notable (as opposed to the the series being notable), that direct and detailed examination must consist of an examination of the episode which is distinct and different from the treatment the source gives all episodes of the series. For example, the existence of two Star Trek episode guides, each of which contains a short summary of each Star Trek episode, cannot be taken as conveying unique notability to each episode. However, if each of those two books had a specific extra chapter devoted to The Trouble with Tribbles that was longer and more detailed than given the typical episode, that would very likely indicate that there was something uniquely notable about the episode.

The importance of the source being an independent third-party cannot be overemphasized for determining notability. DVD commentaries, official episode-guides, official web-sites, and similar sources can be very useful for providing information about an episode, but cannot be used to establish notability. On the other end of the spectrum, articles in academic journals are a strong indicator of specific notability for an episode.

Realistically, Wikipedia articles start out incomplete, and, in practice, never achieve 100% completion. Eventually, however, a judgment call must be made as to whether the topic can support a stand-alone article, or whether it should only be mentioned in a superordinate article, such as an episode list for a series or season. The following criteria indicate that the article should probably be retained as an independent article. Meeting one of these indicates that in time, the multiple independent reliable sources can probably be found. It does not, however, give a free pass. Eventually, those sources must be located and incorporated into the article, or the article cannot be retained.

  1. Awards from a notable organization. Being nominated for a major award or winning a minor or technical award from a notable organization, where the award nomination specifically mentions the episode, is an indicator of specific notability. Caution must be used if the episode was nominated but did not win, or if it is a technical award. In either case, it may be difficult to find sufficient external sourcing to support an article. Fan-club awards do not constitute an award from a notable organization.
  1. Unusual impact on real world. If an episode had a specific and unusual impact on the real world (the "seizure-causing" episode of Pokemon, the Trapped in the Closet episode of South Park, Dan Quayle vs. Murphy Brown, etc), it is probably specifically notable. In these cases, it is reasonable to expect that multiple, reliable, third-party sources already exist, and these should be incorporated into the article quickly.
  1. Strong influence on subsequent works. If an episode has had a notable influence on subsequent works, and has been the subject of remakes, homages, and parodies that are acknowledged as such by the creator of the remake, homage, or parody, that indicates specific notability. Homages and parodies should be substantial. For example, the long parodies of Nightmare at 20,000 Feet, such as the Muppet Show sketch, a segment of one of the Treehouse of Horror episodes of The Simpsons, and an entire episode of Johnny Bravo should be considered, while references such as In The Critic episode 'Siskel and Ebert & Jay & Alice', Jay sees Siskel and Ebert fighting on the wing of the plane, then they are frightened by seeing him. would not.

[edit] Discussion of Synthesis

As best I can see, few people liked using ratings. I tried to combine the discussion of academic sources, trade sources, etc. under the lead paragraph ... I have no objection to someone trying to break them out again if there is a coherent method of doing so.Kww (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree except with "The following criteria indicate that the article should probably be retained as an independent article. Meeting one of these indicates that in time, the multiple independent reliable sources can probably be found. It does not, however, give a free pass. Eventually, those sources must be located and incorporated into the article, or the article cannot be retained." The phrase "should probably be retained" does not seem to meet what was said above. Rather, the criteria were indications of possible notability and that the article might be notable. Particularly with the awards. I think some of the caveats need to be worked in more for the awards sections. Also, eventually is too vague, I think. I'd prefer something saying that if the article's notability is question, if sources indicating the article meets the appropriate criteria has not been located and incorporated into the article within a reasonable amount of time, the article cannot be retained and may be merged into a list or main article. I'd also like to see an even strong emphasis on reliable sources (and don't forget those wikilinks to WP:V and WP:RS. Should there also be a section of what does NOT establish notability, based on what was not considered good above? Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

None of these should be presented as "indicators of notability", because with other sub-guidelines that's led to confusion such as that we should keep even unsourced articles if they pass a sub-indicator. Notability is substantial mention in many reliable and independent sources. Period. Not something else. Let's leave that clear, and instead say "Here's when you're more likely to have some luck at finding such sources. But you still have to actually do that, and that would be now, not a year from now." Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence "The importance of the source being an independent third-party cannot be underemphasized" should say overemphasized and not underemphasized. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Fixed.Kww (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
"Notability is substantial mention in many reliable and independent sources. Period." That actually sounds like original research to me. If WP:V was followed, you would need a reliable source that explicitly says something is "notable." --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not right. We define "wp-notable" being "significant coverage in secondary sources" (or how paraphrased above), while outside of WP, "(non-wp) notable" means something of interest or the like; these are two separate words. Verifiable sources can mention that a topic is "(non-wp) notable" and qualify as a "wp-notable" topic, but we don't explicitly need to state for every topic that a source explicitly stated that a topic is "(non-wp) notable".
The goal of this discussion is to determine how "wp-notable" applies to television episodes, which includes some facets (but not all) of what makes an episode "(non-wp) notable". --MASEM 07:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Masem, and noting that "substantial mention in many reliable and independent sources" has gotten left out of the synthesis. Maybe because it's the cornerstone of WP:N? Regardless, I think it should be included, since other subject-specific notability guidelines include it. --Lquilter (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT has been rewritten and is not much more clear on substantial, reliable third-party coverage to meet notability rules. It also makes mention of season pages perhaps being the lowest level of notability for some television series. I am now of the opinion that episodes don't need a separate notability guideline; the new fiction guideline seems to specifically address some of the issues that we're trying to address here. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)