Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am Become Death: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:41, 9 October 2008

I Am Become Death

This is probably going to fail fairly quickly, but I may as well try. These are recently aired and unaired episodes of Heroes that do not establish independent notability. Some reviews do exist, but they would better serve in a section or season article talking about how the current season has been received overall compared to the other two. There is no need to have separate articles just to list large plot summaries and a few reviews that only show that the episodes exist. TTN (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TTN (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It has long been held that episodes of notable shows are notable RogueNinja_talk 22:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, episodes have always had to establish their own notability. It just has not been enforced very well in the past. The most obvious thing you're probably thinking of is The Simpsons, which has all of its episode articles because they're being worked on at a very fast rate (something like 10 FAs and over 100 GAs). TTN (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. WP:EPISODE has never been a notability guideline. It began as a centralized discussion. The reason your notability requirement "has not been enforced very well in the past" is because you made it up. Read Wikipedia is not paper: "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." --Pixelface (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was WP:EPISODE brought up? This is centered around WP:N, which completely goes against that type of thought. I believe Wales also stated that he would want to delete most of The Simpons episodes if possible. TTN (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were talking about WP:EPISODE when you said "episodes have always had to establish their own notability" because you repeatedly referred to WP:EPISODE when you repeatedly posted to talk pages last October that "All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability." WP:N doesn't say "episodes have always had to establish their own notability" at all. It says topics should be notable. Heroes is a notable TV show. And if you can provide a link to where Jimbo Wales said he wanted to delete most of the Simpsons episode articles, go ahead. --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's when most people accepted it as a notability guideline built off of N. Now that it is not the case, I instead refer back to the main guideline instead. The comment from Wales can be found here. I think there is another follow up comment somewhere else, though I forget what it says. TTN (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EPISODE has never been a notability guideline. That appears to be your opinion alone. And when you say "episodes have always had to establish their own notability" did you also mean before WP:N was created in September 2006? I assume you'll be nominating the Simpsons episode articles for deletion next? Thank you for linking to that comment by Wales. I find it interesting that he'd vote to delete them from Wikipedia now that he has a for-profit wiki for fiction content. How about that. Wales also says "notability" is problematic and editors should be more concerned with verifiability. Do you think these articles are not verifiable? --Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until so much real-world information has been added to justify a WP:SPINOUT. At the moment, these articles violate WP:NOT#PLOT (or don't say anything that isn't already covered in the LoE), and I can't find evidence that the Heroes editors are improving their episode articles to fix that (despite previous ep AfDs and a notification at their wikiproject). The episodes also don't assert WP:NOTABILITY (awards, controversies etc.). Redirection is the least lethal solution to the problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge properly looking at List of Heroes episodes, the amount of information there is usually about 50 words and is essentially a program teaser, not encyclopedic, often giving the situation at the beginning of the episode and only hinting at what happens. However, the amount on the individual articles like these tends to be 1000 words, equally bad in the other direction, as an equally non encyclopedic accounts in chronological order of everything that happens. There may have been some preliminary agreement of a guideline or 200-300 words per half hour episode, though to me it would seem best to have this depend on the importance and the complexity. (I assume these are half-hour--the entire set of Wikipedia articles does not seem to actually say). Until we can reach some agreement for how to handle these, the content should not be merged. I will support a merge keeping a suitable amount of content, but experience shows that this median path in this is hard to accomplish. DGG (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are 1 hour episodes, if that affects a proposed word count restriction. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then delete and redirect. In the future, should enough secondary sources become available, they can be forked off into independent articles. But after a merge content that is purely plot summary should be deleted per WP:NOT#PLOT in order to prevent a revert re-creation. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history of merged information should not be deleted because that means the 'paper' trail for information would get lost. Merge and redirect should happen without deletion as per the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.210.177 (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Yet again, a mass-nomination of articles, half of which are future episodes which are already redirected (by nominator), the other half being in full flux due to having only just been aired. It is too soon to establish (non-)notability, and bad timing as notability guidelines are currently under discussion. Each article has to be assessed seperately; for that reason alone, mass-nominations are generally speedy closed. And as the nominator correctly expects, it should be no different in this case. I would close it myself if I weren't involved. — Edokter • Talk • 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed The person that nominated states that "This is probably going to fail fairly quickly, but I may as well try.", then why did they nominate in the first place? Doesn't seem well thought out. --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete all or make a simple list of the episodes. Edokter "too soon to establish non-notability" is not how we work, in fact it's the exact opposite; we don't ideally create articles, or keep them, until notability is established, similar to WP:CRYSTAL or to when young people who have some achievements (but not quite enough to have been noted widely and be independently notable in the press) write their articles here- we don't wait until they have achieved or not achieved something, we go based on what they've achieved in the way of notability at the time of the AfD. Sticky Parkin 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming non-notability on episoes of a well-known TV series in the first place is rather self-contradictory, and not particularly showing good faith in the editors trying to build on that, especially with the guidelines under discussion. But that is not the main issue; Mass-nomination are routinely speedy closed, for the mere fact they the are mass-nominations. That alone is sufficient reason to close it. — Edokter • Talk • 01:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge all (w/redirect) to the LOE. Agree completely with TTN regarding the lack of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per above support. This proposal does not benefit the project in any way. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: I agree that the articles need more information other than plot, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. U-Mos (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although episodes that have not been aired should not have articles yet. I believe that applies to some of these. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and add some summary information in List of Heroes episodes. I strongly disagree by creating articles for unaired articles, expect exceptional cases. This is WP:RECENTISM. Many Heroes episodes are good, have production notes and many other things but these fail any notability and consist only of plot. New pages should created only if an episode attracts that publicity that it is referenced in reliable third party media. Ratings should be added in the List of Heroes episodes. They will improve it as article, enforce its real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: As I noticed someone created pages for all episodes till end of this years using unreliable sources. Last year, in both Heroes and Prison Break, we were in the unpleasant position to reproduce inaccurate and false information about air dates, episode names and summaries. We have to be more strict with articles created with this ways. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an episode list, until more information is available. It is generally WP:CRYSTAL here presuming sources will exist. If this was like the Simpsons or the new Doctor Who, where a large majority of past articles showed improved towards notability immediately after airing with further improvements once the media was on home video, I can presume that notability would be demonstrated. However, spot checking other Heroes episodes, it's hit or miss as to when notability is shown (most have viewing numbers but this is a fact for any TV show, not sufficient by itself), and thus I'd rather see these placed as redirects to list, having them expanded when the sources are there. Plots in the episode lists can be expanded to help create a storyline if needed per season. --MASEM 16:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to redirect can be a solution to episodes that have been aired but not for episodes that are scheduled for November and December. I think we have to work to the List of episodes more, improve it, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I don't see this as an issue. Yes, it will lack plot and maybe other details in the episode list for aired shows, but redirects are perfectly fine here; the future episode articles titles are valid search terms. (Obviously, you need to watch for people speculating wildly on unpublished facts like when Sylar will have Hiro's child...)--MASEM 20:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N met for those that already have been shown (as the nom acknowledges in part). Others shouldn't have been created yet (fish slap), but have such a high probability of being notable shortly that deleting them now is just process for the sake of process. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. For the reasons explained before. And for longstanding practice in this series and many others. GhePeU (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Wikipedia is not a TV guide... This "longstanding practice" is completely wrong. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:NOTPAPER and this. Do you see any airtimes in these aricles? Then they're not a "TV Guide." --Pixelface (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - There all notable. Here's the first page of a google news search.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Please do a quick google news search before nominating things for deletion. This one doesn't require any fancy searching, just type in the name of the episode and hit the button. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of reviews does mean that these are instantly notable. Most recent prime-time episodes are reviewed by a number of sources. The reviews and other sources have to actually be put together in a way to establish that the episode has something more than that. That is not likely in this case, especially when a season overview discussing any overall changes from the past seasons is a much better idea. TTN (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a second the problems with WP:CRYSTAL here (which clearly is a problem here), are you arguing that reviews aren't enough for WP:N, or that reviews might not let us satisfy some other policy while using them as RS? 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reviews only establish that the episodes exist. They do not actually show why the episodes are actually notable, instead just providing an unnecessary list of "guy A and guy B like this, while guy X and guy Y dislike this" quotes. Instead, such reviews can be used to say something like "reviewers thought the season opened *quality*, the premiere episodes having been received *quality* reception, while the later episodes were..." TTN (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying reviews don't count as coverage? --Pixelface (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage, yes. Enough to establish independent notability, no. TTN (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So will your next purging mission be Category:2008 films? --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all We've been over all this before. --Piemanmoo (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, episodes of notable shows are notable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, wether or not episodes from notable shows are notable also doesn't seem to matter when I look at EVERY single episodes of ALL Star Trek series having their own articles. Star Trek might be notable, but can we agree that some episodes from all 726 are really down the drain in notability? I believe Heroes episodes (or television series episodes) can have their own articles.--Smumdax (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, The series is definitely notable, I believe the episodes are notable, we don't have an issue with space - seems like a no brainer to me. --WORM | MЯOW 08:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all aired articles, and the next to broadcast - there's tons of stuff on Google News. The articles are fairly new, and there is sufficient stuff out there to establish independent notability. If there is not in six months or so, then by all means revisit this AFD then, but articles should be given a chance to bloom. Articles that are still a goodly amount of time from broadcast should probably be redirected for now and spun out when there is more information available. fish&karate 11:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the chance that Truth & Consequences and Better Halves got nine months ago, and which have not been improved one iota since their AfD? (Oh, and I notice that one of them went from the AfD redirect result to being restored by a fan without DVR). And I see notability tags since "November 2007". Hmmmm. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the last batch of (speedy) keeps provide any other rationales than WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:INHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I am all for allowing an article to prove its potential (as Fish and karate notes), but hammering on potential forever doesn't get the job done at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all aired articles, and the next to broadcast - I totally agree with User:Fish and karate. I myself will try to establish notability for several episodes. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second Coming episode is on right now here in Australia, I'd actually come here to find out about it and hence hit the AfD. I don't see any strong case for deletion on a policy basis. Orderinchaos 13:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 *'''Comment''' Does the last batch of (speedy) keeps provide any other rationales than [[WP:NOTAGAIN]], [[WP:ATA#CRYSTAL]], [[WP:ITSNOTABLE]]/[[WP:INHERITED]] and [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]? I am all for allowing an article to prove its potential (as Fish and karate notes), but hammering on potential forever doesn't get the job done at all. &ndash; [[User:Sgeureka|sgeureka]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sgeureka|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sgeureka|c]]</sup> 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep all aired articles, and the next to broadcast''' - I totally agree with User:Fish and karate. I myself will try to establish notability for several episodes. '''[[User:Cornucopia|<span style="color:green">'''Corn.u.co.pia'''</span>]] / [[User talk:Cornucopia|<span style="color:red">Disc.us.sion</span>]]''' 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' Second Coming episode is on right now here in Australia, I'd actually come here to find out about it and hence hit the AfD. I don't see any strong case for deletion on a policy basis. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 13:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)