Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Keller! The Musical

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. Wizardman 15:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Keller! The Musical

No chance of ever becoming a proper encyclopedic article. Dorftrottel (warn) 20:09, March 27, 2008 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, no worse than any other episode article for South Park or any other show. There is precedent so it's hard to single out this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but why not start with this "article"? Dorftrottel (troll) 22:35, March 27, 2008
Keep It's easy to tear something down, but a bit harder to create. Nominator's only interaction with this article has been to remove content and now to propose deletion. Why this specific episode, out of the hundreds of South Park articles? Look at this article's history; its growth and refinement continues, it is in no way stagnant and will continue to improve. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed completely unreferenced original research of more than doubtful quality. Incidentally, that left nothing but a plot summary. So, no sources (none on Google at least, perhaps you know any?), no viable content — no article. I'm not trying to "tear something down", as you imply, but trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. Dorftrottel (troll) 22:35, March 27, 2008

Strong keep, I quote what User:Peregrine Fisher said in a similar debate half a year ago: there are some really good SP articles, including (I beleive) three GA episode articles. 3/160 for GAs is actually a much higher ratio than the 3000/2000000 there is for normal articles. It's going to take a while a to get all the episode articles up to snuff, but it's going to be a lot quicker than getting WP up to snuff. Let them live an be improved. Additonally, the nominator provides no serious arguments and all or the vast majority of South Park episodes have recieved enough independent coverage, just because it is not mentioned in this article does not mean it does not exist. 96T (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, no available sources and no viable content are two very serious arguments. If you know reliable sources for this specific episode, by all means please include them in the article. Dorftrottel (bait) 22:40, March 27, 2008

Comment. Maybe I should make this clear: The reason I put this up for deletion is that there is no article. Nothing speaks against recreating the page iff reliable sources can be found and encyclopedic content added. Currently, this page is simply not an article at all, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia's mainspace. Dorftrottel (canvass) 22:38, March 27, 2008

Comment There was an article until you gutted it. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and probably unsourceable trivia thought up and observed solely by random Wikipedians, plus, pure in-universe plot summary does not an encyclopedia article make. Furthermore, addition of more unsourced trivia to Wikipedia pages is not "improvement"; article improvement consists of adding information cited to reliable, independent secondary sources, or editing the presentation of such information to make it more readable. cab (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Potential sources in this GNews search (the Chronicle of Higher Education one, maybe?). Most of it is just trivial mentions, though. cab (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barring an official ban on episode articles, which I don't believe has happened yet, the article can be "edited to make it more readable" as suggested by CaliforniaAliBaba. That's a content issue, not a deletion issue. 23skidoo (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a non-content issue, and that makes it a deletion issues. Also, I don't get the logic about bans on episode articles. You see, it works both ways: Unless policy mandates an article about each and every episode, we should treat them as individual articles, on their own merits. Dorftrottel (harass) 08:33, March 28, 2008

Keep there is precedent for the articles, and nominator is wrong to remove content to facilitate deletion. Hard to give much credence to such an obviously pointy nomination.Horrorshowj (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not familiar with the nominator's editing, so you might want to explain how you feel this AfD is a violation of WP:POINT, but removal of unsourced trivia/popular culture sections is a legitimate form of article improvement (whereas adding such sections in the first place can hardly be seen in the same light). cab (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Their only edits to the article are removing the section and starting the afd, which occurred within a 6 minute period. No notability or ref tags, no mention of any attempts to find reference for the article or otherwise improve it. I'm not seeing any of the diligence required by the deletion policy. Nom seems to have an issue with WP:EPISODE, and has implied this is the beach head. If it's just a matter of the nom not explaining themselves well so far I'm listening, but so far things look questionable.Horrorshowj (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LoE. Nothing promising on Google News, on Google Books or Google Scholar, also no awards as per imdb, episode was also not a season opener or a season finale where major third-party coverage could be expected. I.e. it's a completely nonnotable episode. Per WP:FICT/WP:EPISODE, the article can remain if it contained so much real-world information (from non-third-party sources) that it would be too much for mother articles, but I want to see this effort first before !voting keep. Note to nom: tagging->waiting->AfDing may take longer but will give you better AfD results because interested editors will be given time to do something or live with the results. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another nom comment. I wish AfD was not a number's thing. I hope for a closing admin who really takes into account the merits of each comment. I for one remain utterly unconvinced by the keep "arguments" and I hope for a content-p&g-based closure rather than a head-count. Wishful thinking, but hey, I once thought Wikipedia was vaguely about producing an encyclopedia. Dorftrottel (complain) 09:27, March 31, 2008
Keep. I was able to find coverage/discussion in multiple secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources in quick searches in various databases. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job, thanks. One important thing left to do is to incorporate an appropriate cross-reference into Helen Keller. Dorftrottel (criticise) 01:33, April 1, 2008

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.