Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Roe

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

The result was No consensus. Keep by default. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Roe

A non-notable TV episode, no real world references. Article is just an infobox and plot reprise. Polly (Parrot) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the consensus on Wikipedia is that all episodes of notable shows should have an article. It is done this way for many shows already like The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, etc. Law & Order: Criminal Intent is a pretty notable show. --Amlebede (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Secret ^account 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is no such consensus on wikipedia, the episodes of some shows can be well sourced and make a good article, this however is only a stub and does not really need a seperate article. --neonwhite user page talk 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - stubs can be expanded. I think this page has a potential for expansion. --Amlebede (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ArbCom. JuJube (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per what of ArbCom?? Black Kite 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the direction I would take this and similar types of articles. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note as this article was created after the injuction, I asked arbcom what to do with those articles. Thanks Secret ^account 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I don't understand several of the above !votes. What have ArbCom got to do with it? AndyJones (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Andy, Arbcom have put an injunction on (un)deleting/(un)merging characters and episodes of TV shows - you can see the injunction here. Re:Secret The injunction on the case says it was "Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC). ", this article was created a few hours before that so does fall under the injunction from my reading of it. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' I have nothing to do with the ArbCom case, but I would say that irrespective of any injunction this should be kept anyway -- there is sufficient precedent already established on Wikipedia for individual episodes of notable TV dramas to get their own articles. --SJK (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The is no such consensus, and no such ArbCom ruling. This is nothing but a plot summary, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Black Kite 12:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:V, as the article is primarily based on self-published sources.Kww (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable plot. There is no consensus that every episode of every tv show gets an article. --Jack Merridew 13:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes our notability and verfiability requirements. Episode from a notable TV series with notable actors. References are easily found. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that tv.com doesn't meet our standards for reliable sources, and the data from tvguide.com is just the plot summary provided by the production company. Care to try again for an actual source?Kww (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The show itself serves as a primary source and TV Guide can serve as a secondary source. Both the episode itself and TV Guide are reliable sources and TV Guide is a real world independent of the subject and a significant and notable source. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - On that basis, every episode of every TV show, in every country in the world, could deserve an article, because sources could be found in local TV guides. Care to try again? Black Kite 19:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are independent reviews in TV Guide that serve as secondary sources. There is also episode summary listing that reproduces episode summaries written by the production companies ... those do not count as secondary sources. That's primary.Kww (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I see no good reason why an online encyclopedia that anyone could edit should not have such articles on shows watched by millions of viewers on the original air date and as reruns and on DVD, so long as such sources exist and an article can be written. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with all other articles on not independantly notable articles on television episodes, I suggest we merge and redirect to a List of Episodes. But since we have to wait until the ArbCom bothers to respond to the many questions about the injunction, just keep it. seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking any evidence of notability, or of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason to delete this. Even the much derided WP:EPISODE says the article like these should be merged not deleted. Catchpole (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article cannot be deleted while the injunction is in effect, but after the injunction is over I still say keep. It's an episode of a show notable enough to have an article. It doesn't violate any policies. --Pixelface (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except WP:NOT#PLOT, of course. Luckily, the article rescue squadron are on the case!!. Black Kite 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would class details such as the series title, air dates, guest stars, writers and directors as giving real-world information. Catchpole (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "This episode exists. These people wrote and starred in it. This is the plot." Um. Black Kite 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep. Add a bit of formatting and wikification and Bob's your father's brother. Catchpole (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Er, no. The summary I gave above = Merge & Redirect to a list, or Delete. Black Kite 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:EPISODE specifically states "Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia". Catchpole (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        With reasonable potential. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except of course, plot summaries don't make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pixelface (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This can easily be covered on a List of episodes. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to a list of episodes style article. This is not a particularly notable or exceptional episode of the series. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per normal practice; we do not split out separate articles for episodes unless there is enough sourced material to create an actual article about them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the list of episodes. I owe JERRY an apology; at one time, I criticized his relisting of an article for further debate. JERRY's doing the exact right thing while the ArbComm injunction continues. Editors have been spoiled into thinking that TV episode articles--- surely, original research at its basest level-- are to be kept no matter what ("all episodes of notable shows should have an article"). Then there are others who think that the injunction means an automatic keep, when in reality, it means no decision for now. I'm glad to see that at least some standards of notability are being considered for TV episodes and TV characters. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd stay on the side of keep given past and existing consensus Fosnez (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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