Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flesh and Blood (Star Trek: Voyager)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh and Blood (Star Trek: Voyager)[edit]

This article covers an episode of Star Trek: Voyager; it has no evidence of receiving significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and is wholly constitutive of plot.

I originally simply tagged this article with {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}} on 2007-07-22, further replacing some or all of the tags on 2007-08-22, 2007-09-11, 2007-09-24, 2007-08-09, 2008-08-18, and again today; reversions included arguments detailing other Star Trek articles, and silent edit summaries by Damifb (talk · contribs), OneOfNine (talk · contribs), Platypus222 (talk · contribs), and Wizardman (talk · contribs).

Failing improvement with maintenance tags (and due to their repeated removal w/o cause), I also redirected the article to it's correlative episode list on 2007-11-15, 2007-11-29, and 2008-10-05 citing lack of reliable sources and evidence of notability; those redirections were also summarily reverted by GenkoKitsu (talk · contribs) with an unsummarized undo, by Platypus222 (talk · contribs) summarizing "restoring from redirect -- literally every other voyager episode is notable enough to have a page; I think we'll be ok with this one", and by 91.109.229.104 (talk · contribs) summarizing that "[...] it's an improper use of redirect, if you don't like the content then go through AFD to delete the content and turn it into a redirect. if the page isn't worthy you'll win AFD"

I've explained in detail on the article's talk page rationales for my edits and actions, and have received no replies or input from the aforementioned involved editors and IPs. I've been pointed to WP:AfD by both User:Wizardman and User:91.109.229.104 despite my rationale for maintaining the article's history through redirection. Fourteen months after I originally tagged this page as lacking basic tenants of an article, I'm acquiescing and nominating this page for deletion at the direction of others. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page to list of Star Trek: Voyager episodes pending the sources and initiative to improve the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to episode list and protect. I have no doubt that Star Trek related material has a high chance of being notable, but episode articles should contain more than just plot details and cotain references. This article does neither. Try reading an article about a Doctor Who episode for comparison of what else should be included in such articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple sources available for all star treckepisodes, and they've been cited in other articles. since they've all been discussed by RSs, they are every one of them notable.DGG (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, it'll probably eventually be brought up to par, and in the interim, until such evidentiary elusive initiative and sourcing is found, it's fine as is? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, please read WP:IMPERFECT. DHowell (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG Not much of a Voyager fan, but 'm afraid this is notable. Dloh cierekim 23:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can't just pick and choose episodes to have articles on as this renders an incomplete set. Trek is a major franchise and therefore there is ample sources of discussion regarding every episode. If there is a content issue, then WP:BOLD applies. 23skidoo (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been bold; I've also been reverted nine times for tagging and redirecting this page, being instead twice pointed to take it to AfD since the article's obviously just fine. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you done same with the 100+ other Voyager episode articles, or just this one? My point being we can't pick and choose from a set - all or none. And if it has been established that a series is notable enough to warrant individual articles for episodes (as is the case with Doctor Who and the other 4 Trek series) then pulling out one by itself just doesn't make sense. And last I looked there is no Wiki policy that as yet prohibits these sorts of articles in general. This being Star Trek there are plenty of books and other sources touching on every series, not to mention websites (at least the latter when Wikipedia updates its Website-acceptance criteria to meet 2008 reality). 23skidoo (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying we can't pick and choose from a set is a preposterous claim. You're saying that an album with only one or two songs that meet the articular inclusion policies and guidelines should either have articles on all or none of its songs? A city with only a few schools that meet our inclusion criteria should either have articles on all or none of its schools? A prominent newsmaker with only one or two children who meet our inclusion criteria should either have articles on all or none of his or her children? That's ridiculous, seriously.
      Where, exactly, has it been "established" that notability is inherited? As for choosing any single Wikipedia article based upon its own metits for redirection or deletion does, actually, make sense—it's done every day.
      Last you looked there's no English Wikipedia policy regarding ... What Wikipedia is not? The notability or reliable sourcing guidelines?
      True, there are a lot of relable, secondary sources for a lot of Star Trek. Whether there are for this particular episode: for the last 14 months there has been no effort or interest in this article except for reverting my {{notability}} and {{reliable sources}} tagging (and deftly ignoring that particular page's discussion tab). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me put it another way. Let's say you have three articles: Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, Return of the King. For whatever reason, The Two Towers is deleted. Ergo the set is broken. There is no difference between one book of 3 being deleted or one episode of 26 if all 26 have had articles done that have withstood the test of time. Until Wikipedia outright prohibits individual episode articles -- and I know it's heading that way -- the current standard is that television series with extensive third-party coverage such as all the Star Trek series, Doctor Who, and a number of others -- are notable enough to justify individual episode articles, whereas shows with less extensive coverage such as, say, the original Mission: Impossible which only has one book on the subject, do not justify individual episode articles and thus a list article or section is warranted. That is at present not the case here under current policy. 23skidoo (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        On the other hand, cleanup must start somewhere, and it's doubtful that suggestions to merge/redirect all ST episode articles at once are going to get received well either. (You're right about other stuff though.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect until someone actually establishes WP:NOTABILITY (enough time has been given), possibly protect to end continued disruption (patient good-faith cleanup obviously didn't work). Otherwise, this article is just a plot-only article (WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF), and the LoE (or a season article) can cover the plot just fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The episode does not establish notability, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per pd_THOR I don't see a typical show (which no-one has asserted this to be otherwise) is notable. There is no "best", "first", "influenced" etc. Personally I think it detracts from the groundbreaking shows that should have articles. Dimitrii (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination is beyond silly. It's simply the case that every Star Trek episode has enough independent sources to establish it's notability. This kind of perverse attempt to twist notability to "What should ethically be notable" has to be a nonstarter, per NPOV. Sorry. WilyD 21:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really have no idea what you're referring to with "beyond silly", "ethical notability", or "NPOV" here. Could you have misread either this page or another and replied in the wrong place? I'm serious and not intentionally adversarial saying that, I just don't see any connection with those comments and this discussion.
  However, to reply to the issue of sourcing and notability, this article has neither and hasn't for over a year. Further, I'm not familiar with any decision or community consensus that "every Star Trek episode has enough independent sources to establish it's notability." The majority don't evidence this, in particular the one we're discussing here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Pretty much ever Star Trek episode I know of has reliable secondary sources and analysis of it somewhere, even if its only ratings and critical reception. That this article doesn't have them is something that needs to be fixed, but is not grounds for deletion or redirect. It should be kept so more reference digging can be done. Ancemy (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and send discussion back to the talk page, as this is Articles for deletion, not "Articles for redirection or merging". Both Wizardman and 91.109.229.104 were incorrect for suggesting the discussion be sent here to AfD. No one, not even the nominator, is actually arguing for deletion—this shouldn't have been brought here in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't have been relisted when it was clear that there was no existing argument for deletion. AfD is not a court of appeals to go to when other discussion fora fail to reach consensus. AfD is not a part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Bringing merge or redirect proposals to AfD is forum shopping, and it also unfairly biases the discussion towards merge/redirect due to the decoy effect of the inferior but available option to delete, as a merge or redirect would be seen as clearly preferable to a deletion, whereas the choices between deletion vs. keep or merge vs. keep or redirect vs. keep might not be as clear. We have WP:Proposed mergers and WP:RFC for getting more outside input if talk page discussion fails to gain consensus or sufficient input. The nominator could have also gotten wider input at Talk:List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, Talk:Star Trek: Voyager, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. By the way, the nominator is also incorrect about the unavailablity of reliable secondary sources: Both Star Trek Voyager Companion and Star Trek 101 contain detailed information about individual episodes of Star Trek: Voyager. DHowell (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are arguments being made to delete. A redirect vote is tantamount to a delete vote in that it removes the article from the normal presentation of the encyclopedia. It doesn't remove the history which is good if someone is able to finally able to find something to write about the subject that is not just WP:Plot "Plot summaries. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." Remember this is policy.
  The nominator has tried to get someone to improve the article for a long time with no success. As it is the content other than info boxes is solely in violation of policy. Waiting isn't working. Dimitrii (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD is for requests to delete an article and its entire edit history. A redirect can be made without deleting the edit history. Deleting the edit history requires an administrator. Replacing the article with a redirect does not. AfD exists because it requires an adminstrator to perform the delete if there is consensus to do so. A redirect can be performed by anyone, and if there is controversy it can be discussed many other places besides AfD. This is also policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." We also have a guideline that says "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research." To borrow the words of Uncle G, "What we want is for such articles not to come to AFD in the first place. There's enough work to do at AFD with things that really do need an administrator to press a delete button." As far as "trying to get someone to improve the article with no success"—Wikipedia is not about getting other people to do the work you think ought to be done. It is about collaboration to improve what can be improved. I've shown that there is reliable source material available to cover many details (plot as well as non-plot) about most, if not all, episodes of Star Trek: Voyager. If you are unwilling yourself to use these sources to improve the article then get out of the way so others can. There is no deadline and we allow articles with potential to improve, no matter how long it takes. DHowell (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Episode is notable.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 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.