Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11 Years Later

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Article has been improved immensely since the nomination and relist, so the concerns about WP:PLOT no longer hold true. ansh666 06:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 Years Later

[edit]
11 Years Later (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely plot; attempted to redirect by standard method, but was reverted. No expansion has been given on the article since it was created and tagged. -- AlexTW 05:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The fact that the article is "entirely plot" and has long had an {{all plot}} tag is hardly a reason for deletion. Hell, {{all plot}} isn't even a content tag – it's a style tag!
WP:ASSESS defines a start-class article as:

An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. [emphasis added]

Based on the standard that appears to be implied by this nomination, all stub-class articles and most start-class articles that have not been expanded in a few years should be deleted. To use such a standard would certainly be at odds with a community-wide consensus (as is reflected in guidelines such as WP:STUB). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas - The article has an excessively long plot section. The plot should be no longer than 500 words but it's around 1,000. It is weak in every area except the infobox and even that needs expansion. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article was tagged over a month ago and no such expansion has occurred. I see no proof in the article of enough "secondary coverage". -- AlexTW 15:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the article hasn't been expanded in the last month doesn't mean it won't be next month. The fact that tags have not been addressed is not a reason to delete the article, sorry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, it would be valid for deletion next month, then? And what does the article provide that no other article hasn't yet? I see a plot and one review, easily listable on the season article. -- AlexTW 01:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It provides the possibility for an article that will be promoted from start class. What you're describing is very much in line with a start-class article. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is the concern, why was that not raised in the nomination? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right -- Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. But that is not a reason for deleting an article about a notable episode just because it has not yet been fully expanded. This article just needs to be expanded not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was tagged as being almost all plot a month ago,[1] yet no attempt to reduce the size of the plot or otherwise expand the the article was made until after Alex redirected it. Experience has shown that the longer an article sits in an unnaceptable state, the less chance there is that it will be fixed. People say articles can be fixed, but they never are. That's what happened to those 129 The West Wing episodes. An alternative to deletion is to move the article to draft space, which Alex suggested in this edit summary, but it never was. That's probably the best option at this point. The unimproved draft will probably be deleted in a few months but at least there is a bit of hope there. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The secondary coverage doesn't seem to cover much. Since the AfD tag was added, references added to the article are pretty trivial. Four were added to support the claim that the episode is the first episode of the ninth season, something that really didn't need references. Another two were added to support a claim regarding viewers, which are already mentioned in the episode list article. The entire "Ratings and reception" is sadly lacking. At best this article is a draft. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak keep favoring redirect I'm not convinced that this article has the potential to be improved within a reasonable timeframe. While I believe that it is certainly possible to establish notability for the subject, no editor has so far taken it upon themselves to improve the article. As it stands, the plot section dominates the article, the reception section is literally bare bones, and nothing is mentioned of the episode's development and production. --haha169 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While I believe that it is certainly possible to establish notability for the subject" -- thanks for voting to keep the article, then this is an argument for keeping the article. Again, we don't delete articles about notable topics just because "no editor has so far taken it upon themselves to improve the article". ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They did not vote to keep it, do not twist other editor's words to suit your own agenda. That is unacceptable and will make your position here even less acceptable than it currently is. And given the evidence given by the other editor's here, we certainly do delete unimproved articles - it is actually a common practice. -- AlexTW 15:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. I struck out my comment and noted the editor's admission that the topic is notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an interest in this article and its subject, so why don't you start drafting something in your sandbox or the draft space instead of arguing at AfD? Even if it ends up deleted or redirected, if you can present a solid article at any time in the future, no one will object re-creating this article. But as it stands now, this article has not established notability, and potentially notable is not acceptable for an article to remain in the mainspace. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bigger reception article does not an article make. The extended plot summary still almost solely comprises the whole article, and any reception could be included in the season article. Look for other episode articles for example - there needs to be production information, real-world content, cast, release information, etc. -- AlexTW 00:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really do not like these pages, do you? ^^' We have so many episode articles with less than that, and no one seems to have a problem with it ^^ I really don't see what's the problem here. Lady Junky (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link these articles for me and I'll nominate them for you! What can I say except you're welcome? -- AlexTW 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there appears to be plenty of third-party, reliable sources discussing this episode in particular. I am not sure about the discussion of the current state of the article or whether or not users have improved it in a timely manner. The discussion should focus on whether or not this has received enough independent coverage to support notability, and I believe that it has (I can see quite a bit of coverage after looking through just Google News). Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have changed and added stuff to the article since the beginning of this discussion ^^ Lady Junky (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the draftspace is for. -- AlexTW 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I second Alex. The onus is on the editor(s) who wish to keep the article to improve it to satisfy notability requirements. As of yet, the article still gives undue weight to the plot section and lacks any discussion of the production side of things (conception, development, casting, and release) that is necessary for any TV episode article. The reception section has been improved significantly, but it still lacks any sort of general synthesis (such as, "many critics lauded the episode for xxx") and is merely a list of quotations. Of course, an article doesn't need to be fully complete to avoid deletion, but I am not satisfied the current state is enough. I agree it needs to be improved, but the onus is on those of you who wish to keep it to do so. --haha169 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion should focus entirely on notability. I respectfully disagree with the following statement: "I agree it needs to be improved, but the onus is on those of you who wish to keep it to do so.". The idea of improving the article is a separate issue that I do not feel is directly relevant in an AfD context. When looking through the WP:GNG (General notability guideline), it is all about proving this idea "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". I have always seen notability/significant coverage as the primary argument to whether an article or a list should be kept/merged/redirected/deleted. So I would pivot your statement to say that the onus for support voters should be in pointing out sources that prove this idea of "significant coverage". As someone who does articles on topics related to television series, this is not how I personally go about things. I do personally it differently than whoever created this particular article (I always build up the article to a certain point in my sandbox before moving things over to the main page) so I can understand the sentiments felt by the delete votes and the votes to move this into a draft space. My only concern is that is more dealing with personal preference rather than directly going back to Wikipedia policy. I am not personally tied to this particular subject matter, but I just wanted to fully explain my vote in the context of this ongoing conversation, and I will leave it up to future reviewers and the closer to figure it out either way. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make some excellent points and after reading your arguments I am inclined to switch my position on this issue. The article is in a much different state than when I originally cast my vote. I still personally believe this article needs to be moved to draftspace for very significant improvements, but I'll withdraw my delete vote because I think this article does at the very least meet WP:GNG. --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment. I think that it is important to have an open discussion while still respecting and understanding one another's opinions. The article has improved since it was put up for the AfD. I agree that more improvements can and should be made in the future, and I would highly encourage whoever made this article to pause and do some work in a draft space when making a new article to adequately avoid notability concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/11_Years_Later&oldid=1077840266"