Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinary Merry Christmas

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. Many reliable sources are present now. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Merry Christmas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article/redirect was created without any reliable source or ability to verify the title of the episode, violating WP:RS and WP:V. The only place this name can be found is on the various Glee wiki and fan pages, which are deemed unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Hence, the article page should not yet exist, and ought to be deleted. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be listed at WP:RFD? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to keep the re-direct/article, especially if it is just going to be re-created a week from now. Given the number of sites using "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" as the title of the episode (TV.com, IMDB, YouTube, blogs, Glee forum, etc.) I think it is safe to assume accuracy. The article can always be moved if needed. I created the re-direct when I noticed refs for the episode here . I don't see the harm in having the re-direct and I think it is more beneficial to put energy into expanding the article than running through red tape then starting from scratch again. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote, obviously, is to ~~delete~~ (see below for changed vote and reason for change). All the cited sites, including IMDb, TV.com, etc., are unreliable, and should never be used to start an article. Glee (season 3) has been temporarily protected just to prevent those unverifiable episode names and like edits from being added by IPs who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I don't understand why equally unsourced article titles should get special treatment. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (note: strikeout and parenthetical comment after added at 03:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC) for clarity)[reply]

Change to keep. With the early release of the press release today—normally, it might not be seen until next week sometime, this request has become moot as a reliable source is finally available, almost nine days after the redirect was created. Although it's still clearly wrong to be creating episode articles—even as redirects—before reliable sources are available with the title, events have overtaken this AfD. I ask that it be closed, as an actual article (as opposed to a redirect) will be posted shortly. Having the AfD notice remain on the page any longer is now counterproductive.

I was interested to note that posting an AfD on a redirect page as instructed prevents the redirect from functioning properly. Is that supposed to happen? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Rambling Man, my understanding from reading the various instructions is that Redirects are not eligible for RFDs. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to place it there instead. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how do I find and apply V RS for a redirect? In any case, neutral for the duration of this until, in a few days time, it becomes an obvious keep. Happy Thanksgiving to those of you for whom it matters. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These rumored episode titles have been wrong, and right, before. The title usually originates with a single site and spreads to all the others. (I tracked one because I was curious; it appeared the afternoon of the day that particular episode started shooting.) My understanding of the way Wikipedia worked was that we simply didn't use rumored information, we waited for reliable source confirmation before posting. If those aren't the rules, or they are but we don't care, just let me know. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Relisting to see if the new sources added since the opening of the AfD are sufficiently reliable, as well as sufficient to meet WP:N.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this was relisted: I submitted the original AfD, and noted when it became moot. I would like to withdraw it at this time.

As for reliable sources on a Glee episode, we've never had any question about network press releases or articles from Entertainment Weekly or TV Line: they're professional organizations that report on the industry, and the show sometimes gives screener copies of episodes to the reporters at both. There are more sources for some of the facts in the article, but listing more than one seems excessive, given that the sources involved are all considered reliable. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual episodes are rarely notable ... especially before they're released/shown. Nothing in the article suggests any notability. Maybe delete and redirect to the Season 3 article, but only if the title is actually the real title in the long run. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the title was given in a Fox press release after the AfD was filed. To date, all the individual episodes for Glee have been notable, and widely reviewed and commented upon. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Dr. Who Episodes ? I know, I know, WP:OSE. I live in a Glee-free household (glee-free, some would claim), & have no idea how this stacks up against The Doctor. - Sitush (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different in some ways from The Doctor, similar in others. More intense at the moment, I think. I just finished a Glee episode article for which I read twenty reviews in publications ranging from Time and The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic to Rolling Stone and Billboard to various major city newspapers to the aftorementioned Entertainment Weekly and TV Line. That kind of coverage is standard with every episode that airs, and EW and TV Line, along with their peers, post several articles a week on forthcoming events. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I am able to vote again post-relist, my vote is to Keep the article. WikiProject Glee members will have this article stamped with a GA symbol before you know it! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (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.