Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man

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

This debate has gone beyond its usual purpose, and demands a decision not only on the convenience of keeping a single article, but also a pronouncement on the extension to which certain guidelines and policies apply to individual articles for episodes of TV series. Therefore, it's necessary to analyze each and every argument elaborated for every position. Of course, this decision is not an easy one to make. Arguments to delete are based in a correct interpretation, albeit somewhat literal, of existent and applicable rules and guidelines such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE, and have substance in my eyes. On the other hand, the reasons exposed to keep, although they prevail in raw numbers, seem to be based more on the usefulness of these articles and a general promise of cleanup and search for third-party, reliable sources in order to prove their alleged notability than in actual encyclopedic arguments in tune with our current policies. Commendable as this position is, it doesn't suffice to consider them worthy of a space at Wikipedia unless joined with a serious, unequivocal will to keep them in accordance with the established principles of notability and verifiability.

Like I mention above, a large majority seem to indicate a clear tendency to keep. However, in attention of the strength of the arguments brought upon this debate, as well as having the extension of it gone beyond a single article, I consider this as No consensus achieved. The possibility of submitting individual articles to future AfDs in order to establish its/their notability and/or verifiability on a case-by-case basis remains open. - Phaedriel - 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Man

This is a bundled AfD of all the individual articles for episodes of a minor children's series, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. The episodes are non-notable, unsourced, and typically contain inflated plot summaries, microtrivia, etc., and are already adequately covered in List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes. Following discussion at WP:AN/I I made them into redirect sto the list, but one editor has insisted on reverting to the full forms, so rather than speedily deleting them (which, I think, would be justfied), I brought them here.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

--Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with pages for individual episodes of a television show. Also, what is there to source on an episode page?Hallpriest9 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The development and reception information that's supposed to be there. You are right that "This is an article about an idividual episode" is not in itself grounds for deletion, but the requirements for inclusion still need to be met, such as WP:N and WP:NOT#IINFO#7. Jay32183 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles are sourced. They use the episode as a primary (not the best but still a source) and TV.com/IMDB for other info such as writer, director and other info. There is no official policy that qualifies these for deletion or in your case redirection to the list. These episodes contain more info than can be added to the list. If we added the writers, directors, guest-stars and all that info the list of episodes would be a mile long. (and by the way another editor shared my view asking for consensus on this matter). Unless we create another wikiproject for TV and movies, theres nothing wrong with having them. As it was stated before when I tried this with Phil of the Future, it's much easier to expand and work on an article if it actually exists. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See List of I Love Lucy episodes for an example of how directors and other info can be included without the need for thousands of stub pages. Tables - they can do magic things! --Action Jackson IV 22:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also this would create a precedent for deleting all episode article. Just thought all the people who !vote should keep that in mind. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Your reasoning is truly crap, you give no example as to how they are non-notable. The Suite Life of Zack & Cody is a popular American television series that attracts god knows how many viewers, that for one is notability per episode. A quick Google search turned up tons of sources. Take the example on AN/I I give, you saying they're cruft... doesn't make them cruft. The consensus is to improve, not delete. Matthew 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, stay civil. Secondly, it's not up to me to give evidence for them not being notable; the onus is on the person who claims that they are, according to Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. Thirdly, talk of improvement misses my point. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one being uncivil here, using pejorative terms such as "cruft" (I hope that word wasn't too big for you, btw). Matthew 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Your reasoning is truly crap" I guess you're saying that about myself and others as well, since we have similar reasoning. -- Ned Scott 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I hope that word wasn't too big for you, btw) was uncalled for. You'd do well to remain civil, especially when you are that pompous, then follow it with "btw" - which I wouldn't call intelligent use of the English language... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Episodes shouldn't be the subjects of individual Wikipedia articles unless they meet guidelines resembling WP:FILM, i.e. multiple independent published reviews and/or published works about the episode. For example, the Star Trek episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" is the subject of at least one book (I don't mean a novelization of the story, I mean a book about the episode's production, history of the script, literary criticism of it, etc) so there's some justification for an article about it per WP practices. All other articles on TV series episodes should be deleted or merged to the main article about the series in question. 75.62.7.22 17:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)— 75.62.7.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The Suite Life Goes Hollywood is actually undeniably notable. It is one of the few 1hr episodes that Disney has made. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to keep articles about episodes for which notability is established through independent sources. Obviously I didn't research every episode on that list so it's possible that a few of those articles are salvageable with the right documentation. Disney (either under its own brand or through various corporate tentacles) has made a lot of TV series though, so I don't see anything remarkable from the above Suite Life description. 75.62.7.22 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The episodes are not notable outside of the one show. No relevant information besides bloated plot summaries can possibly be written for them. Any other information is simple trivia, and/or cruft. The only television episodes that actually need articles are ones of great significance (often pilot episodes) and great controversy (certain episodes of South Park come to mind) that meet the set guidelines for these kind of articles. Any other articles are just over-signifying the episode's importance. Nemu 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forget the info about producers, writers, directors, cast all that can't be placed on the list of episodes. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of information would likely belong under relevant sections on the show's main article anyways ("development", "characters" and the such would be relevant sections). Single episode cast members and people like them aren't really notable, so there would be no need to mention them. Nemu 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except directors, writers and producers aren't always the same for every episode. An adding each individual episodes directors, etc. to the main page would crowd that as well. With individual pages we can add international title names and air dates. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. Only the main staff of the show needs to be mentioned. I don't know how many writers it could possibly have, but if it's a larger number, they don't need to be mentioned. A simple development section talking about how the staff devised it would cover anyone that is notable. Any notable information is easily covered in the table. Nemu 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no need for every single episode of any TV show to have it's own article. There are other places of Wikipedia that can run the plots, cast lists, etc. Too many of these contain large trivia/quote sections that are meaningless. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes per WP:EPISODE. While I did not check every single article, the several that I did check were, indeed, nothing but plot summaries and "trivia" sections. If any of the episodes, say, won notable awards or were otherwise notable independent of the series itself, then a properly referenced article can be written. I would not take this, however, as a referendum on all such series of articles because the state of the articles and the notability of the individual episodes will vary the proper course of action. Otto4711 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have a consensus to improve articles like this. Cast and crew info is very encyclopedic, and not at all cruft. The DVDs contain interviews that can be used for extra information. - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have a consensus to consider merging and redirecting these sorts of problematic articles. Otto4711 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus he is refering to is the one established here

Delete - I agree with Nemu. Besides, this is bordering needlessness.--Biotudor 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is with this lame innuendo? Just because I haven't bothered myself much to editing wikipedia, I am not entitled to express my opinion? This is totally outrageous. I totally feel insulted.--Biotudor 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the note because its wording was bordering slandering and it encouraged ppl to discount my vote. Anyone interested may view my contributions here--Biotudor 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Nemu's convincing reasoning. And let me also remind people that overblown plot summaries are a problem not only in terms of "Fancruft", but also in terms of copyright. Plotlines of fictional works are subject to copyright. It's a fair use issue just like with images: a plot summary needs to be subordinate to a legitimate encyclopedic goal, such as critical commentary. Long plot summaries that don't fulfil such a goal and which aren't really summaries but full-blown renarrations of the whole series cross the line into "derivative works", and are therefore nonfree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I doubt that a "plotline" is copyrightable anymore than facts are copyrightable. Edison 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Try and publish a novel that has exactly the same plotline as the latest Dan Brown thriller, and see who will sue you. Or better, just read up on fair use law, for instance here: [1] Quote:
    - Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who's Who and What's What, containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show "Twin Peaks" as well as detailed descriptions of plot, character and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd. 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)
    - Not a fair use. A company published a book of trivia questions about the events and characters of the "Seinfeld" television series. The book included questions based upon events and characters in 84 "Seinfeld" episodes and used actual dialogue from the show in 41 of the book's questions. Important factors: As in the "Twin Peaks" case, the book affected the owner's right to make derivative "Seinfeld" works such as trivia books. ( Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like the "direct quotations" were a crucial factor in the case. Absent that, the plot is not copyrightable. One could always find prior uses of the plot or of each of its elements. "West Side Story" and countless other works used the "Romeo and Juliet" plot. Edison 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. "Romeo and Juliet" is public domain due to age, obviously. As for the cases cited, it may or may not be that direct quotations were a factor, but the main thing was the presence of an overblown plot summary: "Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd., supra, involved a book published by PIL concerning a television series. The book included a detailed recounting of the plot of the first eight episodes: ‘every intricate plot twist and element of character development appear in the Book in the same sequence as in the teleplays.’ 996 F.2d at 1373. The court held that the book was basically an abridgment of the script and that abridgments (despite contrary, aged authority) are generally not fair use. Id. at 1375-76. The plot summaries were so extensive as to be substitutes for rather than complements of the copyrighted scripts." [2] This applies here exactly. And as for the general copyrightability of plots, you may chose to believe it or not, - just read up on stuff, I can't be bothered to spoon-feed you even more references right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above, and WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge individual pages into List of Episodes of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, in a manner similar to the presentation of the first three seasons in List of I Love Lucy episodes, and redirect individual pages to this aforementioned list article. (NOTE: As per User:Jay32183's concerns, I would like to clarify/add Strong protect for individual articles, post-redirection, to keep the redirects from being reverted. The following argument still stands. I'm completely happy with either one large List of Episodes of TSLOZ&C article, or articles for each season). I've made this argument before, and I'll make it again: Certain episodes of television shows do deserve individual mention within an encyclopedia, either for becoming iconic within popular culture via its artistic presentation or for becoming iconic within popular culture via other reasons. When a television series is constructed as individual mini-movies (see: Twilight Zone or even Columbo), it does make sense to split individual "episodes" off into their own separate articles (especially given that those two shows I just mentioned had a reputation for casting "A-list" actors (the first non-pilot episode of Columbo was actually directed by that E.T. dude), hence the gritty-nitty obsessive details of plot and cinematography can serve and likely have been served by a film historian). I'm not going to get into an argument over the merits of the A-list, or what separates Burgess Meredith and Richard Basehart from Carrot Top and ten seconds of celebrity guest. There's a line between art and "product", and to paraphrase Potter Stewart, you know it when you see it. When a series slips from art to product, when the most an article can possibly contain is a virtual (not literal) copy-paste of the cast list from the IMDB, a plot summary, and perhaps if somebody's really industrious, a list of themes within this hypothetical episode that were repeated elsewhere in the series (oh, and of course, compulsory mention of any reference, no matter how dubious or gratutious, to other television shows made within the episode), when there is little if any innovation to be found and when a hypothetical in-depth examination of the construction yields no particularly unique insights into the craft - then it's all information that would be better off elsewhere, such as in a fan-made Wiki. I'm no more an "art snob" than someone who CSD A7's Johnny Twoshoes' autobiographical vanity article is a "human snob". The way that the first three seasons of I Love Lucy are presented here is a good example of how this information should ideally be handled. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course - some lesser-known shows can benefit from having the content within each episode highlighted. But plot summary, cast-list, and trivia, ad naseum, for season after season of a series that few people will even remember five years from now? No thanks. --Action Jackson IV 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't matter how notable the TV series is, it is how well-written the articles are. The Prince of Darkness 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nonsense. If an article on Action Jackson's Stinky Socks is the most brilliantly crafted article ever to grace Wikipedia, with underlying themes that bring a tear to every reader's eye, it's still G1 Patent Nonsense and not notable. If well-written articles were all we were shooting for, it'd pay to replace the current Adventures of Huckleberry Finn article with the text of the original book. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and the same goes for every other article related to an episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, That's So Raven, Profiler, and any other series foolishly deleted or up for deletion. ---- DanTD 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and create redirects as proposed. If it can be demonstrated that any particular episode had significant or lasting pop cultural impact, an article can be created for that episode. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD will set precedent for all episodes as mel stated. He is here to get consensus and set a precedent he can use to get rid of all episodes he deems not notable or cruft. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General question - To anyone that says that these can be improved upon: do you really think any of these could possibly reach the quality of this, this, or anyone of the episode articles here? That argument would be fine if the lower quality Simpsons episode articles were up, but this show is totally different. The good number of GA and FA Simpsons episodes show that those episodes could probably become like that fairly easily. Nothing about these episodes shows that. Their general quality is horrible, and nothing shows that it can be any other way. Nemu 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:Action Jackson IV, and per the precedent of the Lucy episodes. Individual episodes which have been written about by reliable independent sources so that legitimate articles are possible satisfying WP:N and WP:A can then be broken out into in separate articles. Lengthy trivia-filled articles about each episode of TV show are non-encyclopedic and often original research. I would like to see a little more plot summary than Action Jackson. There could be a paragraph in the "List" article which gives the events (with spoiler warning) in the episode in more detail than the teasers in TV Guide or the show's website, which is useful to viewers who start a series in midyear and want the "back story" or who miss an episode and want to catch up. Those who want to delve into every frame of a TV show can do so in the discussion at Televisionwithoutpity. I do not see TV.com, the reference cited in the episode articles as meeting WP:A and WP:N. It is a policy decision for Wikipedia to make as to whether an editor's viewing of the original TV episode satisfys WP:A. Edison 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you check the List of I Love Lucy episodes|I Love Lucy article]], you will find that there are plot summaries throughout. The "list of" is somewhat misleading - picture it as a series of listings from TV Guide, with a concise plot summary and notable guest stars and "trivia" (i.e., mentioning a notable televisual "first", or perhaps a little backstory on scenes of note (the chocolate-eating scene) - not mentioning each and every specific homage in later TV shows or other maniacal horseshit of that nature), just without the self-indulgent bloat of these individual articles. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

Strong KeepI agree that this would set a bad precident which could jeopardize episode articles for any TV show. If individual articles are bloated, poorly written or poorly sourced, then improve them but don't delete them. Episode articles are appropriate for Wikipedia.JeffStickney 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as has been said already, there really isn't much room for improvement. Multiple, notable secondary sources do not, for whatever reason, see fit to make mention of Kept Man in their critical overviews/analysis of American television. Hence, the articles stand no hope at becoming anything other than a plot summary, a cast list, maybe a trivia section, and maybe some original research to spice things up. If somewhere down the road an episode gains notability or noterity, then at that point an article can be created. We do not maintain a stub for every newborn baby on the grounds that someday, they may meet notability criteria - episodes of a TV show should follow suit --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete these, but not others. This is a children's/early teen series that you would only know if you had/are a child/early teen. Like other minor series, it should have just an episode list, with slightly longer summaries then normal for episode lists. However, this should not apply to other series. Classic series' (such as I Love Lucy) deserve almost every episode to have an article, and an episode list, very briefly summarizing episodes. Currently popular series (such as LOST, Heroes (tv series), Survivor (tv series), etc.) should have articles for the most important episodes, and an episode list.--Ac1983fan 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and this will not set a precedence, as it is a minor series.--Ac1983fan 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Define "minor". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, hmmm.... I'd guess a minor series would be series primarily directed at children and tweens, ones that have only one season, and shows with very little character development.--Ac1983fan 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is a show primarily directed and younger audiences, while Firefly lasted only one season. Are either of those "minor shows"?
        As for "very little character development," that is so incredibly subjective that I'm not even going to bother trying to counter it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, minor isn't something one defines as one thinks about. But still, this is a children's series that very few people who are not/don't have teens/children/newphews & nieces/grandchildren etc. will know about. How are you going to compare it to something like Power Rangers, which nearly every american knows about?--Ac1983fan 19:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Just because it's directed towards a younger audience doesn't make a series minor. That's in effect saying it doesn't matter because it's made for a kid. Saying a TV show is minor because its for kids would be the same as saying a school is minor because it's for kids. And for the seasons it's going on its 3rd season and it's characters are developed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't think I'm biased against the series. It is in fact one of my favorite shows to watch, and I am a teenager too. What I'm saying is that it is relatively unknown to a lot of people.--Ac1983fan 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Adam Gilchrist is relatively unknown to a lot of people, but he's still today's Featured Article.
        My point in all this is that you're attempting to use highly subjective criteria, ones that are sure to be debated by others. We need crisp and clear criterion, not "well, I don't think people have heard of it, so it must be minor". After all, basically any kid's show in the UK is going to be minor to an American, and vice-versa. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, apart from everyone in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and Zimbabwe (all of which seem to be small islands somewhere off the coast of Florida somewhere) nobody's heard of Adam Gilchrist. 124.184.177.117 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That proposal is the first one to actually make sense. WAVY 10 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles contain no more than just plot summary. No evidence of sources available to add an acceptable level of real world context. If the redirects have already been reverted once, then preserving the edit history is dangerous. Jay32183 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N requires Multiple, non-trivial sources for articles. Episode guides are trivial sources. If there are any decent sources examining an episode in a factual, scholarly way, then its a keep, if all the sources are episode guides, these fail Notability, one of the Five pillers of Wikipedia. -M^ask? 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not particularly fond of the precedent that this sets for television episode articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another keep based on the precedent fear. How little faith you have in good episode articles. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry if that sounded it a bit harsh, I was actually trying to go for funny but failed. -- Ned Scott 18:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. What is this about, anyway? General consensus is that episodes get articles, don't use AfD to try and change that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Episode articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. --MZMcBride 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. All of the That's So Raven episodes were redirected to List of That's So Raven episodes despite them having more than enough info. And now this happening to Zack & Cody, the episodes have alot of info, they should stay. QuasyBoy 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It's Useful" is a poor justification for keeping. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list. The only notable episode of TSLOZAC is That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I don't buy for a second that this won't set a precedent. Cburnett 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's why you are supporting keep? -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not. He says "and." --Kizor 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all bad faith nomination IMO, a lot of hard work has gone into these. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, if these are deleted, it should certainly not set a precedent, for example, look at the individual episode articles for Doctor Who and Torchwood - they're all well sourced and definitely notable, not worthy of deletion. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have a very strong inclusionist policy and I see no reason to delete these. they are informative and helpful to anyone looking for said information and when you have to go to multiple sources to get the same info, it is nice to have one wikipedia article about an episode; it saves alot of time if i wanted to know more about one episode. Don't give me that bull about other sources being available such as TV.com because we all know the individual episode pages rarely have much information over there and so this is a good all around source. I also agree this will craete a strong precedent for tv episode pages people are working to better. Diemunkiesdie 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is not the best, deletion would set a Bush. Sorry, I mean a bad precedent. The plot needs condensing, and other sections need adding. However, people chose to keep Scream trilogy because it could be a good article, rather than deleting existing rubbish. On that basis, keep. Clean-up, though, and get rid of trivia sections. Look at The Simpsons articles for some excellent examples of episode pages. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not world politics. Shocking, I know. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called humour. Look it up: you'll find it in the same section as humbug. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was rather uncalled for. The point is that in world politics, there are precedents (and presidents). Wikipedia has neither. --Action Jackson IV 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say a few things before my vote:
1. Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus can change." That is, precedents have no meaning in the long run, should you even manage to set one. This AfD will not lead to all episode articles being arbitrarily deleted, and neither will a keep ruling prevent articles from being put up for deletion later. If you want general consensus on a group of articles, you should seek to get a proper guideline on it instead - go get WP:EPISODE changed if you must.
2. WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles: "If the articles contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." People should consider alternatives rather than the black-and-white "episode articles or no episode articles." People should also note that each television series must be taken on a case-by-case basis, as some television episodes have more content and notability than others.
3. WP:DELETE#Deletion discussion: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." In short: use dispute resolution.

I feel the third point is the most important; this shouldn't have been dragged here in the first place. I motion to close this AfD and move discussion to a more proper place. Neither side particularly wanted deletion in the first place and made little effort to talk civilly or get consensus with the editors involved before coming here. Phony Saint 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Obviously, the third point is for situations where editor A wants the article to lean one way, editor B wants the article to lean another way, editor A gets fed up and performs the equivilant of taking his ball and going home - nominating the article for deletion and smugly smirking as he clicks the mouse button. If you had read the deletion summary more carefully, you would see that that is not at all the case. Please assume good faith in the future. --Action Jackson IV 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Were I only to read the initial comments, I would also be joining you and the others in taking sides. However, I also took into consideration the talk pages and user histories of Mel Etitis and Malevious and see that they decided to use an AfD to resolve their problem. Not that I'm questioning that they both are sincerely contributing to articles relating to the Suite Life - but, I do note that they're using AfD inappropriately. Phony Saint 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I'll try to look at the reasons offered for this deletion:
- Its a "minor series":subjective criterion. There's no agreed-upon definition of a "minor" series.
- Non-notable:no explanation of why it's so, unless based on the prior subjective criterion.
- Unsourced:the articles offer sources
- Are plot summaries/triva:Something that can be remedied without deletion.

All that said, I'm just not seeing a convincing reason to delete.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:FICT contains a very clear definition of minor. A minor concept does not have enough independant, reliable sources to attain a full article. Since there are zero sources documenting the production and reception, a full article cannot be attained. The only precedent this could possibly set is the one WP:EPISODE tried to be. That is, individual episode articles should not be made until there is enough nontrivial information for the article to stand on its own. There is no subjective measure there at all. Based on those objective criteria, "keep" is a bad option, "delete" is a good option, and "merge/redirect" is a coin toss. Merging should not lead to overbloated plot summaries on the episode list, and redirects should not be restored to articles every few monthes with no new sources coming out. If those two problems can be avoided, then merge is a good option. It may require a bit more intervention than Wikipedia admins are likely to be willing to perform, but it is a possibilty. Jay32183 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument offered, though. The deletion reason offered was that this was a "minor series." That's subjective, and what I was adressing.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed up The Suite Life Goes Hollywood a little bit, to show that it can be done. - Peregrine Fisher 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope what I'm about to say isn't taken as a personal attack, or overly belittling. But here are my problems with this supposedly "improved" article: 1) the plot summary is gratutiously overwraught, poorly written and going into more detail than is absolutely necessacary. Perhaps a better-written piece could afford more detail, but this is rather tiresome. 2) While the "commercial" section would be a nice touch in a fan-wiki, it is not particularly notable, and "It's Useful" is not a great argument. 3) While the reception section could be good, neither one of these two (sourced) quotes is very profound. Are semi-advertising blurbs suddenly deserving of encyclopedic merit? (Clarification: We're not debating if the shows were "good" or "bad", just whether there was anything particularly unique about this episode versus other episodes of contemporary shows). It reads a bit more like a press-piece than an encyclopedia article. As it stands, the extra bits which allegedly raise this up in quality seem tacked on, unnatural and arbitrary - and in such a way that I don't think they could be improved even given three years of work. It's a bit of a catch-22, and I hope you understand that I'm not saying this just to be difficult. Even if all the articles in the AfD were at the level of this one, I would still vote the same. --Action Jackson IV 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's going to be the greatest article ever. It's a mildly notable episode, not Spiderman 3. It had a good subplot, included some overacting, and had some notable guest stars. Nothing earth shattering, just the start of a good article on a children's show. - Peregrine Fisher 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But therein lies the crux of the biscuit. Nobody (to my knowledge) is declaring that this television series does not deserve an article of its own. But each individual episode is basically as you described - a subplot, varying degrees of bad acting, and some guest stars. Nothing earth shattering, and nothing that a well-organized table (such as the Lucy table) couldn't accomodate. --Action Jackson IV 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Why not just tag it for a clean-up then? Cleaning up the article and making it decent is better than having it deleted. And by adding info from a few sources it establishes notability by having "multiple independent sources". He showed that sources can be found for episodes if given time. It's much easier to tag an article for clean-up and work on it than it is to delete it and have to start from scratch if an editor wishes to work on it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Because there's nothing that can be done. "Clean up" is not some magical process whereupon reliable secondary sources take it upon themselves to explore new areas of individual episodes of a mildly popular children's TV show, whereupon Wiki authors from across the globe tinker and create a mountain of content from the molehill of an episode. I'm not disputing Peregrine's skills as an editor - which is why I took great pains to clarify that I was not saying "you did an awful job, Peregrine", but rather, "you did the best job that could be done, Peregrine, but the article still isn't worthy of its own page". The sources that can be found will universally be TV listings and Entertainment Weekly esque "new season roundups", and possibly some Disney overviews. Basically, secondary sources that tell us whether we should watch an episode of this show or not. Compare this to, just to take a particularly violent counter-example, Citizen Kane, about which enough has been written to start a Wiki all its own - and these writings are not simply reviews or previews, but actual meat - the real world equivalent of, say, a post-doctorate thesis. I could write a thesis on this film, or, in the realm of television, a paper on the cinematic innovations of the Twilight Zone, or how Columbo narrowed the divide between television show and movie. If I tried to write my thesis on an episode of the Suite Life of Zack & Cody, I'm afraid I'd be laughed out of the professor's office - and that's assuming I could find any sources beyond the bare-bones scraps of television gossip rags. --Action Jackson IV 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a ridiculous precedent to set. To say episodes of a mainstream television show are non-notable is not right, and as it's been pointed out, most of the episodes have verifiable sources. Of course they should be worked on, but deleting them is not the solution. If this AfD is an argument against the practicality of individual episode articles in general, I suggest you take a look at Pilot (House) for a featured episode article. We should be striving for featured content, not deletion. -- Wikipedical 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that logic I could have an article for myself, and then say "we shouldn't delete this since it's not notable, we should keep it and make it featured". -- Ned Scott 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except these have a chance of becoming featured. Sources can be found as Peregrine Fisher noted. The series itself is notable. One of the things mentioned was the overly detailed plots, instead of deleting it just based on that, why not tag it for a clean up and let an editor fix the problem. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles? No, they have no chance in hell of being featured, lets not kid ourselves. The problem here is people seem to think that it's all or nothing with episode articles. An episode of house being notable enough to have an article and to have that article be featured is one thing, but that doesn't make every episode of every show notable. Realistically speaking, -these episode articles- that this AFD is talking about, are not likely to be worth anything, nor do they really have any salvageable content. At best we merge and hope that eventually the individual episodes get enough to warrant an article, not the other way around. Please don't equivilate all episode articles. -- Ned Scott 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No chance in hell? How did you work that one out? With enough time and effort these articles can be brought to scratch. Just deleting them seems odd. I have to agree with Wikipedical. Qjuad 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the likelihood of future film school professors devoting entire classes to the masterwork subtleties and cultural ramifications of an episode of the Suite Life of Zack & Cody, I'd say Ned's argument is still valid. There's a chance that one of us in this AfD will walk away from the computer and, whether by sheer luck or by genius ingenuity, find the cure for cancer. Or, more realistically, end up, several months down the line, becoming instrumental in a site-changing, drastically hip Wikipedia policy of some sort. So should we give each editor in this debate a stub bio for now, tag them as cleanup, and wait for the future to decide our fates? I would hope not. --Action Jackson IV 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And regarding setting a precedent, there is a difference between an episode of a show which is broadcast in prime time internationally, and an episode of a show that most people have never heard of. -- Chuq (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the citations I added to the above episode says this is one of the top five shows for ages 6 - 11. It's more popular among children than Lost, House, and Heroes are among adults. - Peregrine Fisher

I assume you mean top five shows in terms of audience? While that means the show as a whole is notable, I don't think it has any bearing on whether or not an individual episode of said show is notable enough to require a page of its own. Diet Coke has been the most popular diet soft drink amongst all age groups, but the can I had with dinner doesn't need an article. --Action Jackson IV 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this series is more popular in its target audience than Lost, so are you saying the episode articles for Lost should all be deleted as non-notable? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that these articles can be merged without anything being lost beyond the pride of those who have worked on them. Other articles exist. This AfD is not about those articles. Please do not try to turn this into a global debate. I said earlier, had you been following, that each television series is different, and to assume there's some arbitrary global standard is both an immature assumption to make, and a pedantic idea to hold others to. The episodes of this series do not merit individual articles. The series? Sure, it's notable. Episodes? Not so much. Like I said, Diet Coke is an awful popular drink, but the can I had for dinner doesn't need its own article (though I assure you that it was a mighty fine can). --Action Jackson IV 01:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical was one of the most popular films of last year and it's soundtrack was only outsold by Stadium Arcadium. It doesn't mean random songs are notable. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia - it contains many articles that would never be in any encyclopaedia - it's an encyclopaedia of film and television, an encyclopaedia of art history and a whole bunch of other reference books - information that might not be collected elsewhere is so ordered a fashion. If there is a problem with an article about an episode of a any tv show then it should be improved, not deleted, and certainly not speedily deleted Quadparty 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These pages are not generating significant work loads, as they are not much vandalised. They attract new users. Wikipedia should not exclude people based on their lack of knowledge on scientific subjects. TV series may be one of the only way users can contribute, now, because they did not receive higher education, and all the common articles everyone knows about are already covered in detail, with additions by experts on the subject. It is nice to see anonymous users contributing something else than vandalism. Most articles only have very small contributions by unregistered users (like correcting minor errors), TV series episode articles seem to have a lot of content added by unregistered users in a constructive way. Also perhaps 100 times more people have seen these episodes than have been to my village, but it still has its article, as do many extremely obscure subjects.--Jackaranga 01:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All - Why do people seem to think Wikipedia is a zero-sum game? It's verifiable and sourced information that someone may one day go looking for. YOU may not, but I won't ever look up Roy Apancho and you don't see me trying to deny the info to others. Sheesh. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and tidyup. Wikipedia is not WP:PAPER. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be in play here. I would agree that the plot summaries are overlong, and the articles do seem to be short of secondary sources. But given time - this may improve, after all wikipedia wasn't built in a day. Per above the show seems notable. Megapixie 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As other users have mentioned, if the article for the episodes for this series are deleted, then the same would have to happen to every article about a television episode, which wouldn't make sense. And I might be wrong, but I'm getting the suspicion that the reason these articles are being nominated for deletion at all is because the nominator either doesn't like the way the articles are written or just doesn't like this particular show.
- By the way, I really don't think using WP:USEFUL is a valid argument for deletion because that's an essay, not a guideline. Anthony Rupert 03:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that point made any sense, if this ends up as a keep, we will never have to delete another episode article. We aren't setting any sort of precedent with this AfD, though one desperately needs to be set. Episode articles are nominated for various reasons, with the largest being the lack of any reliable sources. Other reasons include little notability past the show or series, and a general lack of information. Nemu 03:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced, reasonably well-developed, clear evidence of enough maintainer interest to keep them from going downhill. I also don't like the idea that things should be deleted because someone deems them 'cruft' or 'minor'. Those aren't arguments, they're characterizations. Every subject is someone's cruft. Even your favorite one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really shouldn't comment on every single keep, but I must ask: what are you talking about? Only one article out of the whole batch seems to have any sources, which are used poorly. None of them are developed at all. The only have bloated plot summaries and trivia sections, neither of which are anywhere close to well developed. Being minor is a very large concern, and is also a perfectly fine characterization (otherwise WP:N would be useless). Nemu 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is pretty useless when it comes to episodes. An episode seen by a million people is more famous than maybe 95% of our articles, and interests people more thatn probably 99% of our articles. Every episode has two important reliable sources; the ep itself, and imdb (and others) for cast information. I think people are too hung up on what they thing an "encyclpedia" is. WP is new type of encylopdedia, and episodes are one of the things that makes it way better than the old type. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An episode being seen, even with millions of viewers, does not make an individual episode notable. It's TV, and getting millions of people to watch something for a half hour happens so often that it's no longer a definite indication of notability. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline says that notability is not determined by fame, but by being the subject of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. It's completely objective. These episodes are not the subject of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Abyssinia, Henry and Cape Feare are. That's the difference. Jay32183 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Because I do fear this will set a major precedent (and don't say it won't, we know better), I'd personally like to see these stay, or at the very least be combined into articles by season ("The Suite Life of Zack & Cody season one" or somesuch, more detailed than the current "List of..." article), with brief summaries and other necessary data. And while it isn't a valid argument here, I must also throw "useful" into the mix, as I've genuinely found many episode articles (not these specifically) to be highly useful. my 2¢ -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting keep for fear of the precedent is not necessary. If these articles get deleted, then those articles get deleted. We have individual AfDs for a reason. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks the original statement

"Agreement on this will also have an effect on how we deal with thousands of other trivial, fancrufty articles..."

was removed from the nomination (and probably should be put back). Still, to say this doesn't effect our general thinking is, I think, incorrect. How many of these AfDs do we go through before we consider what theyre results mean? I think there are two ways to set a precedent. If the episodes from Lost or some other extra notable show gets its episodes deleted, then all less notable episodes should be deleted. If some less notable show like The Suite Life gets its episodes kept, then all more notable episodes should be automatically kept. - Peregrine Fisher 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It isn't the notability of the series that determines this, it's the indivdual episode. Each series isn't all or none. The problem isn't that the articles are about individual episodes, or that they come from a particular series. The problem is that sources do not exist to make a fully developed article. There may be sources in the future, but we should wait until then to write the article. Stop worrying about precedent. If people would actually take indivdual discussions in isolation, it wouldn't be a problem. Assess things as they come. The assessment here is that the articles either get deleted, or, if there is actually meaningful content that isn't on the episode list, merge. Jay32183 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, of this I am aware, however, I still have a user's right to voice an opinion. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned also has a right to point out that your opinion is invalid because it is not supported by facts. Saying "I have a right to my opinion" in this situation is the same as saying it after saying you don't vanilla ice cream and Ned asking if you've ever tried it. Opinions not supported by facts are meaningless. Jay32183 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huntster that a precedent is possibly being set. You say it's unsupported by facts, but one AfD effecting another has happened before. There is nothing invalid about Huntster's opinion, and you shouldn't call their opinion "meaninless." - Peregrine Fisher 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The episodes are notable if the show is notable. The show would not exist without its episodes. By analogy, Wikipedia has thousands of articles about villages and small towns which are notable largely to people who live in that country. Anthony Appleyard 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes collectively, as the show, are notable, but are not independently notable, nor do they have enough real world information. Small towns and villages are like season articles, and episode articles are like having articles about each street. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe states and counties are season articles, and towns are episode articles. - Peregrine Fisher 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the fact that Wikipedia has articles about a country and then small towns doesn't mean that any unit of the parent topic/whatever should get it's own article. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2

Strong Keep. The Suite Life is a internationally popular show. It is one of the highest rated kid shows, one of the first shows to appear on iTunes, and one of only a handful of disney shows that have gone past the usual policy of cancellation after 65 Episodes. If you delted these, you would have to delete every shows episodes. What about shows only regognised in single countries or states, or small independent films only realeased in 10 cinemas. These articles should be kept, there is always room for improvement. You don't delete an article because it is poorly written or researched- you tag it or fix it up. Also Wikipedia is an article anyone can edit, and some people obviously know or research a lot about TV shows episodes, why can't it have an article for each episode, it obviously interests a lot of people. This all goes for the That's So Raven episodes as well. -- Allied45 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Action Jackson IV (quotes from Allied45 in italics, please do not break this comment up, as it'll make for very confusing reading).
The Suite Life is a internationally popular show. So give the series its own article.
It is one of the highest rated kid shows, one of the first shows to appear on iTunes, and one of only a handful of disney shows that have gone past the usual policy of cancellation after 65 Episodes. Yet again, all good reasons to include The Suite Life of Zack & Cody in an encyclopedia.
If you delted these, you would have to delete every shows episodes. Nonsense. AfD works on a case-by-case basis. Just because Action Jackson's Indie Punk Band is deleted for being non-notable doesn't mean that The Strokes will suddenly be deleted. This is touched upon in this essay, which I highly recommend reading.
What about shows only regognised in single countries or states, or small independent films only realeased in 10 cinemas. Again, a case-by-case basis - but it seems you're arguing against deleting the main Suite Life article, which nobody has any intentions of doing.
These articles should be kept, there is always room for improvement. You don't delete an article because it is poorly written or researched- you tag it or fix it up. It depends on how the article needs to be improved. For instance, let's say that I'm surfing Wikipedia, and find that there's - inexplicably - no article for Television. So, of course, I create an article, but I don't know much about how they work, so my article reads, "A television is usually a square box. It has like a screen or something, and using technology from the 1950s, it makes moving pictures that move but aren't really movies on the screen. There've been lots of moving pictures that move but aren't movies, usually referred to as television shows". Naturally, this article should be tagged, and hopefully fixed up. But, let's say that I create an article called Action Jackson IV. I'll have you know, I'm really a nobody. Should we tag that article and wait for me to get off my ass and do something that is written about in Newsweek? What happens if I never do anything of note - if all I end up doing is typing lots of words in AfDs? I'm a nice person (just as a given episode of Suite Life is a nice episode), but there's really nothing that truly distinguishes an article on me from an article on most other Wikipedia editors.
Also Wikipedia is an article anyone can edit, and some people obviously know or research a lot about TV shows episodes, why can't it have an article for each episode, it obviously interests a lot of people. It seems that most people who don't wish to keep these articles are in favor of merging them into one big article (or an article for each season). This would actually make it easier for people to read up on episodes, without having to wade through a bunch of individual pages. Also, see this policy - to quote: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information . . . Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". If and when an episode gains historical significance, or achieves some greater merit than merely being an episode of a TV show a lot of people like to watch, then there's no reason an individual article cannot be created. --Action Jackson IV 07:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of replying to you statements before you moved everything around, but anyways.

This AfD was specifically created to set some sort of standard for episode articles.

I can't write a sourced article on Action Jackson's Indie Punk Band, while these articles contain sourced information. An article on Action Jackson IV would have 0 reliable sources, while these pages all have a minimum of 2 reliable sources.

As far as WP:NOT is concerned, it has parts that allow, and parts that discourage, articles like this. If it forbid these pages, they'd be long gone. This AfD is for making a judgement on that, and it looks like a keep. - Peregrine Fisher 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Episode List Article Unless certain episodes have some significant cultural impact (like Trapped in the Closet (South Park)), I have to question such articles on Wikipedia. More along such issues like space, and slowly violating multiple policies on Wikipedia. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do not violate any WP policies in a way that can not be fixed by editing instead of deletion. There's some essay that says space considerations shouldn't be taken into account, either. - Peregrine Fisher 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you support Wikipedia being some poor-mans version of fan sites? --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sourced encyclopedia for television is what I support. - Peregrine Fisher 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the trivia and fancruft. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per....umm...above? c'mon, I don't want to read all that. OK, how about going back to the fundamentals: per Wikipedia:Notability "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."(de-emphasis mine) I'll re-consider if such sources can be presented. I see TV.com is used and is fine as a source (if used appropriately, of course), but if that is all there is then perhaps the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes is all that is needed. --maclean 08:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed up The Suite Life Goes Hollywood, as noted above. It is possible to improve these articles. - Peregrine Fisher 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, right on! However, I just get an "Error:Invalid story key" message at The Hub link, and the "The New York Daily News" one is mis-used (those are not 'Reception' critiques, they are previews of what is on TV that night - the author shows no evidence of having watched those shows before writing that). A question though before I change my vote: What is in this article that could not be displayed in the list? --maclean 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, all episodes of this show are notable. Everyking 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why/how? Lankiveil 09:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For one thing, it's a very popular show among its demographic (not at all "minor"), and every episode is watched by a great many people. For another thing, having episode articles is, as people who actually work on these kind of articles figured out long ago, important to facilitate the growth of content, and there's too much information in these articles already for a merger to be possible without some serious trimming. Everyking 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're bloated with plot summary, which WILL receive serious trimming if kept. WP:NOT#IINFO number 7. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That'll probably be about as successful as this AfD, since there's obviously no consensus to do such a thing. Everyking 09:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information into episode listing, then Delete. No sources provided that I can see, these episodes are not the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a TV fansite, take it to [3] if you want that. Lankiveil 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, although wikipedia has good policies against being a container for all information out there, in this case I think deletion/merge is not mandated as the definition "minor series" is a subjective criterion not fitting in this case, and concerning sourcing - there are multiple reliable sources in some of the articles (The Suite Life Goes Hollywood). Still clean-up, add more sources, and get rid of trivia sections. feydey 10:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has a ton of stuff like this. Honestly, I'm satisfied with just a list of episodes with a synopsis for each episode, but individual articles can be nice... Also, the Suite Life of Zach and Cody isn't as obscure as you're making it out to be. J'onn J'onzz 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at most, redirect to an article listing all the episodes in SLZC. These are episodes of a nationally-broadcast television series. It's a kids show, so the commentary may be a bit more difficult to find, and if there isn't valid encyclopedic information about some of them, then keep them in the list. I don't expect myself to find out which are which though in the scope of this nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm torn on this issue. I like the idea of having episode information, but I think some of this stuff can be excessive at times. WAVY 10 14:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless an episode is the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources, I see no reason to have an article on it. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries, or for microtrivia. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nubula 15:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason? -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all to allow discussion on the talk page. Mel Etitis was bold to redirect all of the articles. Reverting his actions was appropriate as it lacked consensus. Rather than taking this issue to AfD, the matter ought to be discussed on the article's talk page. Even if the articles are deleted in this AfD, they still need to be recreated as redirects! This is an issue that ought to be discussed on the main article's talk page, rather than being brought to AfD. Also, the nom's claim that the articles are unsourced is partly inaccurate (the source for the article information is in all cases the episode itself and a episode guide website) and mostly irrelevant (the majority of information in the article is easily sourceable via {{cite episode}}). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all those writing "Keep - add more sources" or "Keep - the articles are reliably sourced", you aren't paying attention to the discussion. Not one of these articles, including the one PeregrineFisher "cleaned-up", have any reliable sources. The sources needed to fix these up do not exist. Sources do not magically appear when you add tags to an article. The fact that sources can't be found is completely objective, so don't act like people are insulting this particular program. And for people talking about precedent, the precedents that can be set are "deleting articles that do not have reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject", which is already a precedent, or "editors can write articles about absolutely anything with concern for verifiable, meaningful content" which would completely destroy all credibility and creditibilty that Wikipedia has. Improving Wikipedia sometimes means removing content, and this is undeniably one of those times. Jay32183 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those, and I strongly resent you claiming I'm "not paying attention". First, every one of these articles has at least one source: the episode itself. Go nominate {{cite episode}} for deletion if that's such a problem. Secondly, they also seem to be citing TV.com. Now, granted, that's not the best source in the world, but its not completely irrelevant in this context, either. In my opinion, these two together constitute sufficient sourcing. You don't need to agree, that's what we have discussion for, but please don't claim I'm "not paying attention" becuase we see things differently.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episode is a source, but if it is the source, it becomes irrelevant. I don't see TV.com being used as a source; it's only an external link. Even then, it seems to be openly edited by users, so I don't think it could be used at all (correct me if I'm wrong). Nemu 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, OK, the section is called "external links", fine, but that's pretty common. Footnotes aren't the only method of referencing. As I said, I agree TV.com isn't the best source (although, as I understand it, its based on user submissions with editorial oversight, something of a gray area) nor is the episode itself, but I, at least, believe that the two together are sufficient. That's my opinion, not evidence I'm not paying enough attention to the discussion.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite episode}} is for sourcing plot elements in articles on works of fiction, but it doesn't reliably source notability. TV.com is almost never a reliable source because it is editted by its users. The articles can't be just plot summary, but they are, and that's all we can source. Compare these articles to Abyssinia, Henry and think about what needs to be done and what can't be done. The overlap may surprise you. Jay32183 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, fine. But please don't belittle others who may disagree by claiming they aren't paying attnetion. That's just insulting.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're never going to agree, but citing an episode for the plot, and citing tv.com for cast information is enough. The notability is established by the viewing of the episode by millions of people. These pages just illustrate a flaw in WP:N. - Peregrine Fisher 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't enough. Citing for the plot is fine, but if you cannot cite anything else, it's pointless. I doubt you can even use tv.com for that as that also seems to be user-edited. Besides that, we don't cite the cast directly in the article, once again nullifying your point. Notability on Wikipedia is defined by RS's and the like; saying there is a flaw in WP:N is just a weak opinion. Nemu 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the episode articles are kept, they need to be thoroughly overhauled. Compare Hotel Inspector to The Crossroads of Destiny. And The Crossroads of Destiny to The Five Doctors. If we can get it to something on the par to The Crossroads of Destiny, that's good. We should aim to get it on a par to Doctor Who episode articles. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those episodes are just as bad, if not worse. One is a giant plot summary, and the other is another giant summary with a ton of cutable trivia. We need to aim for sourced info, not cruft. Nemu 20:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is we need notes about continuity, production, et cetera. I picked TCOD because it's written better than TSL episodes, and I picked The Five Doctors randomly out of the DW serials I know of. Look at any Doctor Who article for the new series at least, we have sourced information about the things we need. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of the possibility of those sections is the main reason for this AfD. They cannot be sourced, so there is no way to place them. I don't really agree that a giant plot summary is better writing than a large one. Some of the DW episode articles are decently sourced, but they still suffer from giant plot summaries, and a lot of trivial information. They aren't really good examples of what these should be. The current FA episodes are better models. Nemu 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't have any episodes on the wiki that are featured articles. But we should aim to get them to Doctor Who episode standard, at least. If we can't get it onto the standard of The Crossroads of Destiny, they shouldn't be on-wiki. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? We have this, this, and three here. Once again, the problem with the episodes is that they cannot reach any level of quality, which is exactly why they should be removed. Nemu 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Didn't notice that. I was looking at the TV WP. I think the TCOD should the absolute minimum of quality for episode articles (as you'll see, I voted merge). Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - and the same for virtually any other single episode of any other TV Series you can mention. I can think of maybe half-a-dozen individual epsiodes that would pass normal rules of notability were they a printed item, so let's start thinning down on them, starting here. - fchd 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Really bad argument. Malc82 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or Merge to list. A short list, sans plot summaries. Essentially ludicrously detailed plot summaries with some credits pasted onto them. Where are the 3rd-party sources that have somehing to say about the episodes? --Calton | Talk 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep... to answer the questions about "notability", I think that any program on broadcast television in a major country is notable. What are the ratings of this show on the Disney Channel? Probably an order of magnitude lower than the lowest rated program on the four major broadcast networks. Thus, the episodes are non notable. The other question is how the episodes relate to each other. For instance, I Love Lucy was a comedy with episodes that aren't interlinked, unlike 24 which each episode is integral to the understanding of the following episode. Therefore, this can't be used as precedent for anything. Calwatch 04:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: there are other sources for community driven TV information sites such as tviv and tv wiki, with oodles of tolerance for all cruft. Ultimately, it is probably best if somebody copies all the stuff from Wikipedia and puts it on those sites, because once it's deleted, it's gone for good. Calwatch 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On Wikipedia, notability is determined by availability of sources, it is not a judgement call. Jay32183 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everything beyond the major policies is a judgement call. Look at the subject specific notability pages for examples. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Everyking's rationale on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Crikey! Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for plot summaries, which is what this little beauty of an article is! Stewe Erwin, Cruft Hunter 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my long rationale here: [4]. Pinball22 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles are informative and verifiable, and as part of a notable TV show are themselves notable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and Comment I wrote a message on this showing my support for these pages to be kept and it was deleted, I ask you not to delete these comments to twist the conversation in your favour, I'm very dissipointed.--Wiggstar69 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What are you talking about? According to your contributions, you've never said anything here before. Phony Saint 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then that means that has been edited too, a bit sad if you ask me.--Wiggstar69 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, that can't be edited; it just isn't possible. I'm guess that you got caught in an edit conflict, which happens sometimes and in no way reflects anyone's attitude towards this article or your comments. Please assume good faith. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All and merge/redirect any relevant info to episode list. Per WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT, articles shouldn't be nothing more than a plot summary. And while the episode itself may be used as a source, we shouldn't have articles using just primary sources or just one source. If secondary sources can't be found to add info beyond plot summaries, these would be better covered in an episode list with a brief plot summary and any other relevant info. --Minderbinder 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cast and crew information is not plot summary, and is independantly sourced. - Peregrine Fisher 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't sourced anywhere in the articles, and they aren't independently important. They're fine in episode articles, but they don't qualify as sourced information unless integrated into a development section. Basically, they only are mentioned if the episode needs an article, otherwise they're just left out. Nemu 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and crew detail isn't enough content to justify a separate article, as it can be contained in the episode list without disrupting the focus of that article. What the articles need are detailed information on the development and reception. To do that you would need interviews with the production team, and articles, not blurbs, from television critics. Until you find those, there is nothing supporting your argument. Saying "Keep" and assuming there are sources is counterproductive to Wikipedia's goal of being a verifiable encyclopedia. Jay32183 19:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and crew info is all available from watching the show - to have a separate article there should be info that comes from a secondary source (not info from the primary source repeated by a secondary source). From NOT: this can include "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" I see none of that here. --Minderbinder 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air dates and production codes are independant of the show. To say small reviews ("blurbs") are not important is an opinion we obviously don't agree on. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where do they easily fit? The episode list? Small reviews don't really say anything for children's shows besides "Oh, that's cute" or "It's fun for the family", so it's sort of hard to count them as anything. Besides, only certain episodes even get that much. Nemu 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "blurbs" since the articles don't seem to contain them, and I haven't commented on them. If the only sourced independent info is a production code, that's not much reason to have a separate article - those could easily go in an episode list as well. --Minderbinder 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some refs to The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. Basically that it had a good subplot, included some overacting, and had some notable guest stars. It's discusssed above. - Peregrine Fisher 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do those qualify as good sources? You have two "reviews" calling it cute, and some non-notable ratings from one day. The reviews are about as notable as local newpaper reviews, and the ratings are only included if they're notable or relevant, not just because. Even then, that is only for that episode. I doubt you could find any of that material for more than ten of them. Nemu 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that they are good sources. Non of your arguments so far have changed my mind. Local newspaper reviews are fine. First it's that no information exists, then it's the information that exists isn't good enough. Sounds like you just don't like these articles. The info isn't easy to find, but we'll never know how many of the eps have that kind of info if the pages are deleted. It's possible to improve them, so they should stay. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Only a plot summary? Tell that to all the users that contributed to The Simpsons episodes. Anthony Rupert 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's commenting on THIS AfD. Focus, people, focus. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this stuff isn't sourced right now, it certainly COULD be (and eventually will be), and in the meantime the current state of things isn't really hurting anything. No need to discard a bunch of good content in what seems to amount to a fit of pique. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that idea? Have you read any of this discussion? That is the largest reason for this. So far, the only sources (in only one out of all of the articles) are poor at best, and nothing shows otherwise. It can't be solved using blanket statements like that. Nemu 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because slow improvement is what happens on wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemu: I suggest you check out WP:STUB. Night, Matthew 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a stub and an article without content. All of your arguments have been "they can be improved" while nothing has shown that they can improve. There is a difference between Disturbia, a relatively new film that suffers from the same problem as these articles (pretty much only a plot summary and some trivia), and Big Hair & Baseball. As a movie, Disturbia will more than likely improve in the future. There are various reviews, articles, and primary sources that are/will be available. Big Hair & Baseball, on the other hand, has only shown that its only reference is itself, which is not good enough to warrant the article. You cannot say that "it will likely improve" when nothing shows that. Nemu 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STUB doesn't talk about article deletion or merging at all. But Wikipedia:Deletion policy says "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list." That seems to be the case here since nobody has been able to find info that would allow these to be expanded. --Minderbinder 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably referring to the "stubs are allowed" part while ignoring the "these cannot be improved" part of this argument. Nemu 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these pages were merged into season pages, I pretty much guarantee we could find a lot of references for each. Merging to the LOE is not acceptable, because the cast and crew information will be lost. The LOE plot summaries also don't contain much of the relevant info from the ep's plot summaries. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Why couldn't any relevant cast and crew be merged to the LOE? --Minderbinder 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it won't fit in the table. See Smallville (season 1) for an example of a season page. - Peregrine Fisher 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So make a better table if that's what's needed. --Minderbinder 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65 episodes won't fit on one page. The standard way is with season pages, or episode pages. - Peregrine Fisher 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're acting as if all of that information is needed. The air date and the plot is all that needs to be singled out for those Smallville episodes. You don't need to single out writers or directors most of the time, and the cast can just be mentioned next to the characters name on the summary. Music is just cruft. Nemu 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree. All of that information is important. - Peregrine Fisher 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is important if you can't provide sourced analysis. Until you can do that, you have nothing to say. The choices are delete or provide sourced analysis. No one saying "keep" has provided anything close to analysis. These can never be real articles, accept that. Jay32183 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree, don't take it so personally. - Peregrine Fisher 02:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3

Comment This is one long discussion. I sincerely wish the admin closing this the best of luck. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the admin really goes out on a limb, and decides not to just vote count, there is a pretty clear consensus to keep (unfortunately). Nemu 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there's no consensus either way. I'd prefer a concensus to delete, of course, but there are enough people voting delete that it's basically gridlocked. Of course, with the way that AfD is set up, that's as good as a Keep. Lankiveil 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Some people find it shocking, but there's been a consensus for months. Here's a list of episode AfDs that I've participated in lately. With a little bit of commentary on the results.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey La, Hey La, My Ex-Boyfriend's Back - withdrawn, notability established
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OH!? Please ♥ Mister Postman - merge was already in process; result no consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles - 50 or so episodes kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall's Reform - resulted in some redirects, and some kept as episode pages. Should have been a mass nomination.
Dojo, Oh No!/ Finding Hershel - keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode) - keep
The Patient - keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All The Time In The World (Alias episode) - keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball episodes - keep

Ones that I didn't participate in probably had more mixed results. - Peregrine Fisher 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why are they kept? Because it's a vote. People just cite WP:EPISODE as if it says all articles stay, instead of saying merge/redirect if the information cannot be provided. All other reasons are just for principal, or people that want to keep everything, which isn't a good reason. Plus, most of those have less than ten votes. Nemu

Because there certainly is no consensus to delete. This one is a better precedent, what with 60 or so keeps/deletes/merges. - Peregrine Fisher 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a consensus, I see that as a flaw in our AfD system. Many of the AfDs get flooded with flawed arguments and then have closing admin that don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers. Look how many people are wanting to keep not based on the articles themselves. AfDs on episode articles are headaches, and most of the discussions themselves get off track. People react emotionally, blindly, and simply because enough of them do that we have the situation we have now. Not to mention having Wikipedians go around telling other people that if they don't vote keep, the big bad deletionists will come after them too. This is exactly why AfDs are not supposed to be a vote. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a flaw in our guidelines, not AfD. This page has more comments than some of the big guideline discussions. It's the guidelines that don't totally reflect consensus. - Peregrine Fisher 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus to delete. Not one of the keeps has said anything to show that the articles can be well sourced articles that provide more than just plot summary and trivia. The closing admin shouldn't care that they're telling a majority that they are wrong. Saying "aww, come on" does not overturn a consensus. This isn't a difference of opinion either. All of the keeps are factually wrong. Jay32183 02:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I well sourced The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. This makes every "keep and improve" factually accurate. - Peregrine Fisher 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see only plot summary and trivia. Even the reception isn't notable considering it's what you would expect for any given episode of the show. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked it, you would have been a keep. - Peregrine Fisher 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm a huge fan of Lost and I've supported delete on episode articles there. I'm a big Digimon nerd (I'm 24, if you're wondering), and yet I pushed for a mass-article merge of every single Digimon article that is nearing completion (and STILL needs major cruft clean up and merges/deletes). I've cut cruft from my favorite shows and supported deletion of trivial articles about them all the time. This, in no freaking way, has anything to do with what I like or don't like, and I take offense to the suggestion that I would have supported keep had I liked the show, as if I were some shallow deletionist. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I was unclear. I just meant you aren't a fan of keeping and improving, at least not as far as my improvements to "Goes Hollywood" are concerned. I know that you and I "vote" based on prinicipal, not on which particular show. - Peregrine Fisher 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, ok. Sorry about that, then. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling Ned what he does and doesn't like? Would I also be a keep if I liked this series? Do I need to remind you that I used the exact same reasoning in the Xiaolin Showdown discussion and I admitted to being a fan of that series? Jay32183 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about this show. I'm talking about keeping and improving all episode articles. - Peregrine Fisher 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that have to do with this AfD? Phony Saint 03:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders why we have deletion discussions at all, if they're meant to be completely disregarded...--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving back to Peregrine Fisher's statement that "the consense is clearly keep" - I think it bears mentioning that while there certainly are more "keeps" than "deletes" and "merges" combined, I don't believe that sheer numbers should override policy to this degree (though trust me, I'm not a die-hard policy junkie or anything). "Consensus", to me, implies that there's a compelling reason beyond sheer numbers - and I'm not seeing that here. A good portion of these "keep" comments are the same basic argument - either 1) "WP:ILIKEIT" (in a nutshell) or 2) "these are very notable episodes because the TV show is notable and they have been seen by a lot of people". Neither of these two statements is what I would consider a compelling argument. I have yet to see my question answered - probably lost in the discussion here - so I'll ask it again in a different way: how is any given article of this series any different from my making an article about Diet Coke 204 of Action Jackson IV's 2006 Diet Coke Drinking Binge, The lightbulb in the local Wal-Mart's back room, or this sparrow Action Jackson IV saw in his front yard yesterday? Diet Coke, lightbulbs, and sparrows all have notability. Some individual lightbulbs (like the one in the firehouse that's been working since 1906) have notability. Does this mean all light-bulbs automatically deserve an article of their own? I'm coming off as slightly antagonistic, but trust me, it's just the Diet Coke talking - I really do want to see more of the "why" behind these keep votes. --Action Jackson IV 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say (with no offense intended) that's a rather flawed analogy. For one thing, its a problem of numbers. There are millions of cans of Diet Coke in the world. Also, there's nothing unique about a single can of soda: one is the same as another. Not so with episodes of a tv series like this one. Now then, what I think is at the crux of the matter, is just how far a plot summary can go. WP:FICT uses the term "reasonably short", which obviously calls for for some judgment to be applied, which will, in turn, sometimes lead to differences of opinion. It (WP:FICT) further states that sub-articles ought to be made when "encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article". Now, in my opinion (and, I think, the opinion of many of those say keep) providing encyclopedic coverage in this case does, indeed, call for sub-articles. They could be made into a list, true, but, in my judgment, a list providing encyclopedic coverage of each episode would be too long to be useful or practical. Obviously, some editors will disagree: that's why we have discussions. A judgment call is called for here, and we're finding out what the consensus is.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyre has it right. If you have a million viewers, spending 1/2 hour of their lives watching a show, then that's 500,000 of what I'll call media hours. In my opinion, 500,000 media hours per episode is enough notability to warrant not only a show page, and a list of episodes, but individual pages for each episode. Per Wikipedia:Summary style if you must. If all we can find to add are short reviews, standard ones that local papers write about lots of episodes, that's fine. Wikipedia is a television encyclopedia as well as an everything else encyclopedia, and episode pages are pretty much part of our mandate. - Peregrine Fisher 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that isn't how notability is defined here. Madness Combat is a Flash series viewed millions of times all over the internet which easily earns it "500,000 media hours" by this point. It was still deleted, showing that your perception of WP:N being flawed not a common or accepted one. Obviously the internet notability guideline is a little different than the rest, but if it followed your "number of views = important" thought, the AfD would have been different. The closing admin even decided to delete it even though the keeps outnumbered the deletes because it failed to meet the guideline; hopefully that will be the case here.

Why do you still continue to call your improvements to that one episode good? You have be shown by various people that it does nothing for your case. Reliable articles aren't built from minor reviews that are less than a paragraph. Nothing else has even shown that the same material can be found for the rest (that's a special episode isn't it?). You drone on these small points, and you never back them up. Nemu 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Something called Madness Combat was watched for over 500,000 person hours? That sounds like something notable, or else the hours weren't added correctly. Were those hours repeated for 65 different versions of it? Something like 30,000,000 person hours? I know that's too much, but if you can show me a ref that says that Madness Combat was watched for over 500,000 person hours, I will create an AfD proof page for it.

2) I think those improvements are good. Are you aware that opinions can differ? I'm not trying to complete these 65 pages myself, I just wanted to improve one to show it can be done. I'd improve another one if I thought the delete voters would care, but I don't think they would. - Peregrine Fisher 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - someone attempted to add a keep to Talk:Kept Man. I pointed them to this page, and they blanked that page. - Peregrine Fisher 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All, the argument behind pretty much all of these Keep votes is WP:ILIKEIT, which is no real argument at all. Notability not demonstrated, these articles are not the subject of multiple non-trivial works, etc etc. MichelleG 12:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Com - eh, Keep. These are, or can reasonably considered to be, subarticles, kept separate for better coverage. If (say) the "Schlock Mercenary" article got too big, and I split off "Characters of Schlock Mercenary," would I need multiple RS for the characters as well? (Honest question.) --Kizor 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What would/should happen if (and this looks likely because the result looks like a deadlocked vote) the episode articles were kept? WAVY 10 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this isn't a vote, it's a discussion giving for and against arguments for the deletion of this article. Since the "against" arguments have no real substance, deletion is the correct outcome, at least according to policy. If the article is kept, it's yet another precedent to allow TVcruft to continue expanding exponentially on Wikipedia. MichelleG 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Not only is this not a vote, but the closing admin needs to be especially careful in closing not to go by raw numbers since there has been a ton of canvassing with a pro "keep" slant. I'm not surprised there's more quantity "voting" that position, although with no policy to support it. --Minderbinder 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The relevant guidelines, WP:N and WP:EPISODE, support merging them. However, the initial two editors working on the episode articles couldn't agree on whether or not to merge them, so they ended up here. Phony Saint 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Read my (long) discussion of this at ANI [5] for what I think is a keep argument with substance. (Quick summary: Episode articles always have at least one source, the episode itself; series or season pages are sufficient for some shows, but for popular shows, episode pages prevent overly long, difficult to read, and constantly edit-warred-over season or series pages; the benefits for readers that episode pages provide outweigh the concern about limited sources in this case.) Pinball22 13:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Popularity has no direct relationship with episode articles; what matters is what "reliable, third-party published sources" have written about them (and in this case, little has been written about a typical Disney Channel comedy.) Edit wars don't qualify as an appropriate reason unless there is some previous consensus for the series in question that there were problems and that was the necessary thing to do. Phony Saint 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, it does have a relationship with episode articles, in the sense that more popular shows will attract more attention and get more information added about them. I'm not saying that these are reasons that all shows should have episode articles, or that edit wars would be a problem for every show. I'm saying that shows should start out with a series page, which should then be broken out into season pages and then episode pages as people contribute information, and that plot summaries written by watching the episodes in question are a valid type of information gathered (appropriately according to WP:RS) from a primary source. Pinball22 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        People edit war over cult followings and less popular TV shows too; people edit war over anything and everything. Nothing says that using primary sources is inherently bad; however, there are WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, and WP:EPISODE#Content, which emphasize short summaries. Phony Saint 14:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope we are so fortunate as to have TV "cruft" expanding exponentially on Wikipedia, Michelle. Information is a good thing, it's what we're here for. It would be completely outrageous for this to be closed as delete or merge when the delete and merge votes together are heavily outnumbered by the keep votes, and I am confident the closing admin would not do such a thing. Actually, we're bordering on a consensus to keep. Everyking 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since this is not a vote, factors like "outnumbered" are completely irrelevant. --Minderbinder 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I consider it a vote, but even if you don't, surely you can acknowledge my point. Consensus to delete cannot possibly exist when a majority are in favor of keeping it. Numbers have to matter on some level, or the concept of consensus can't even be applied. Everyking 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You consider wrong. And consensus can absolutely exist when a majority want something but aren't supported by policy. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus. "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." "Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision. Judgment and discretion are essential to determine the correct action, and in all cases, the discussion itself is more important than the statistics." --Minderbinder 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are talking about vote counting, not consensus. A consensus cannot exist when a majority of people disagree with the decision. If someone were to pull this "the majority's viewpoint isn't compatible with policy" stuff, they still couldn't claim the minority's viewpoint was a consensus. Everyking 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When the majority does not have the knowledge to properly participate in a discusiion, the minority can achive consensus by ignoring them. Jay32183 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's preposterous to claim the majority isn't informed. Are you telling me I don't have the knowledge to participate in this discussion? It's also, needless to say, preposterous to say consensus can be achieved by ignoring everybody who disagrees with you. Everyking 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a difference of opinion. You are factually wrong. Opinion doesn't play at all. You have no evidence to support the claims you are making. The fact that you continue to make those claims shows, at best, that you are uninformed. It's find the sources or the articles get deleted, no opinions necessary. When it's objective like that, no one's opinion matters. If team A scores 5 points and team B scores 4, then team A wins. It doesn't matter that you think team B played better, or that you think team A got lucky. Jay32183 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What claims have I made that you think are factually wrong? My arguments were that the show is quite notable and that individual episode articles give more room for content and facilitate further expansion. I feel that you are wrong about the sourcing issue because the show itself easily meets notability criteria, and the episode articles merely constitute spin-offs of a higher level of detail, in which case having only one source for those articles (the episodes themselves) is fine. Multiple independent sources are necessary to assert the notability of a basic topic, but not necessarily to assert the notability of specific elements within that topic. In this case, since these individual episodes are seen by millions of people, we have no rational reason to consider them non-notable elements of the topic. Additionally, I am sure some of the episodes have received some degree of coverage in magazines, for example "Odd Couples", in which Ashley Tisdale's character kisses Zac Efron's character, so in that case do you want to keep an episode like that and delete the others? Everyking 03:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Notablitlity for a stand alone article is determined by multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject, so these articles all fail the notability requirement. It doesn't matter how notable you feel they are, there aren't sources to back it up. If you find sufficient sources for one the rest should be deleted, but you must find the sources first. No sources means everything you say is completely meaningless. Since plot summaries are supposed to be small, you can't expnad plot summaries to claim there is too much content. The arguments from the keeps have been I like it, useful, not harmful, inherited notability, interesting, lots of viewers, and let's not lose content. Jay32183 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Everyking, you are factually wrong. Consensus can be a minority when the majority isn't supported by policy - all "votes" without a valid reason should be ignored by the closing admin, particularly in a case like this that had extensive canvassing. --Minderbinder 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Will people please stop using essays as justifiable arguments? Guidelines would be valid here, but these are essays. As I said before, it appears that this all started due to one series' episode articles that follows the same guidelines that most (if not all) of the other series' articles follow, and it seems that that was only brought up because the user doesn't like the show or something. I don't watch that show either (I don't dislike it; I just don't watch it), but if an article on Wikipedia doesn't hold my interest, I don't read it; simple as that. Anthony Rupert 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ATA (all of those links up there) isn't being used as an argument. It is being used to show why the various keep arguments are trash. The actual arguments to delete come from WP:EPISODE, WP:N, and WP:RS (and possibly more that I'm forgetting), not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nemu 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-May I make a humble suggestion? Let's try to keep the discussion to the points at hand, and leave the (unenviable, I think) task of measuring consensus to the closing admin when the time comes.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on a random sampling of these pages, I see the following flaws:
- Lack of "multiple independent non-trivial third-party sources" as required by WP:N
- Absence of "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" as required by WP:FICT. The small amount of such context that is included is unsourced (e.g. asserting that one episode is the favourite of one of the actors)
- Much of the "trivia" sections is pure listcruft, e.g. counting how many appearances recurring characters have had up to and including the episode in question. I don't believe these problems could be easily rectified. JulesH 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can we just end this thing? WAVY 10 14:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, can we? It's not a vote, thus it has no real bearing on whether the articles will be kept or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by COMPFUNK2 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep per opinions Lizzie Harrison 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whie many people like this show, we have to deal with the question of "IS each episode notable?" In this situation, I have to vote no. However, in drama shows where each episode ACTUALLY HAS AN EFFECT on the next episodes, such as Heroes, Daytime Soaps, Lost, ect.. I would more then likely vote keep in said instances. But since this comedy show has almost no plot and nearly every episode could be watched out of order and the difference wouldn't be noticed, I shall vote delete. The Placebo Effect 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not every episode of a sitcom is notable, but when did every episode of a drama become automatically notable. Your reasoning is that it is because the episodes tie together, which is true of soaps and more recent dramas like 24, but what about older dramas like Bonanza or more recently MacGyver? And how would, for a sitcom, one determine notability/signifigance for an episode? WAVY 10 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notbility is always estblished by multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. Drama episodes are not automatically notable just because there's a running story line. Jay32183 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was for shows where they tie together, dramas was just a better example. The Placebo Effect 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If an IMdb entry indicates notability, then such a show is also "notable".Jewishprincess 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC) — Jewishprincess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

An IMDb entry does not indicate notability. Jay32183 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the show, It's about individual episodes. The Placebo Effect 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 4

Number 4 is considered unlucky by the Japanese and Chinese due to the fact it sounds like death. Which I will that this debate does soon. Motion to close deletion nomination already!!--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First of all, if we say this isn't setting a precendent, every other episode AfD will doubtlessly become an end- and pointless debate of wether that particular series is notable enough. Second, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Since obviously there are enough viewers and contributors to create and read these episode articles, they should just stay. Really, who does it hurt? Malc82 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about the series at all. It's that these article do not have multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. I can't believe you actually presented that argument after it was explained that "lots of viewers" and "who does it hurt?" were shown not to be valid arguments because they aren't based in policy or guideline. The precedent you're afraid of setting can't happen because the grounds for deletion isn't "This is an individual episode". Jay32183 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's be frank here, its hard and oftenly impossible to meet WP's notability guideline (or your interpretation of it) for something rather trivial like a tv episode of pretty much any series. Also keep in mind that notable secondary sources (pop-culture research etc.) usually take some time, while the episode recap should be provided shortly after it's first airing. On the other hand, thousands of contributors spend tens of thousands of hours on episode and tv character articles (btw, I contributed about 10 words overall on tv episode articles, so I'm not one of them). Some of these contributors are also improving the more scientific parts of WP, many might become valuable wikipedians in the future. Since articles about tv shows are on average well-written and a useful resource, I think we shouldn't be too strict in judging them. Deletion seriously discourages every editor of these articles from ever contributing to WP again, and will harm WP much more than risking some more "Jimbo's Bag O'Trivia" allegations, which won't stop anyway. The WP-guidelines cited are not written in stone and I think we shouldn't hold episode articles to the same high notability standards that we (rightfully) demand for a controversial political concept or a biography. Malc82 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is basically WP:NOHARM, which Jay just posted. There are close to two million articles on this site with millions more being possible. If a person can only become a good editor by working on episode articles, something is wrong. And most episode articles are not well written; they are either bloated with plot summaries and trivia, or they're stubs. The only decent articles I can think of are Simpsons episodes, and the Dr. Who serials, which still are a far cry from being that good (besides some specific ones). Currently, most episode articles fail too many policies and guidelines to just say "oh, we can bend them." Nemu 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most people don't start out as a wikipedian, they find an article, use WP frequently and may (as in my case) not create an account until years later, when they feel they could seriously improve some articles. What "decent" articles are may be in the eye of the beholder, I just wanted to provide some arguments that one should consider before making a decision. Granted, there will never be a consensus on m:Inclusionism vs. m:Deletionism. Malc82 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why the notability requirement is based on sources rather than having to make a judgement call. There aren't reliable sources to allow for in depth coverage; anything beyond that doesn't matter. Jay32183 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close deletion nomination already!! Beating a Dead Horse here!! 5 days are up!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Action Jackson IV. I believe Z&C to be far less notable and culturally pervasive than Doctor Who, Star Trek, or the Simpsons. It should set a precedence for other similarly less-than-notable episodic pages, and does not set a precedence for others. -- LeCour^T:C 15:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are many good quality articals that fit into this catagory, for example Doctor Who and Torchwood articals are very well sourced and written. --Wiggstar69 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]