Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Think I Canada

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 delete/redirect. Proto::type 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Think I Canada

The only The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa episode article I could find, a discontinued Disney television series. It's unlikely to be expanded, and serves little purpose if no other episodes are covered. Delta Tango (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless to have an article on a single episode. Unlikely search term and nothing of use to merge as far as I can tell. Opabinia regalis 02:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every episode of every TV show does not warrant its own article.--MonkBirdDuke 02:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, ill go nominate some grey's anatomy or desperate housewives for deletion, because under your logic they might not necessarily have the right to exist either!!! -- Librarianofages 03:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think he meant in this particular case where there is an article for one episode out of 86 with less than five major edits in three years. --Wafulz 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see no real reason for deletion, who knows? more episodes may be covered in time, so we can't take that as a vaild reason for deletion. -- Librarianofages 03:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and redirect. There's not too much substantial text in this article- it could be summed up in two sentences in the main article. Also, the talk page appears to have been host for a vote for deletion and the outcome was "keep" based on !paper. Combined with the fact that it's an unlikely search term and has gotten pretty much no attention in three years, I think it would serve a better purpose in the main article. --Wafulz 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can you imagine the precedent keeping this would set; wikipedia can't possibly have a separate article for every single show out there, especially shows that aren't really notable in themselves--I could see a justification for having articles for particularly famous episodes of famous shows (for example, certain episodes of I Love Lucy). --The Way 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. It's an animated cartoon that ceased to continue seven years ago. And a large proportion of the article is an analysis which seems to be orignal research. Common sense (if common sense counts) says that this will continue to be a lone episode, still unfit for this encyclopedia. Delta Tango • Talk 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Patrick Hurston 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom, then redirect to Timon & Pumbaa (TV series) T REX_speak 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Way. There is nothing in the article or offered fron external sources to support any claim os notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article for a episode of a tv show, just like any other article for a episode of a tv show. It seems that this was nominted only becuase it is "unlikely to be expanded". So becuase it hasn't been hasn't been edited in a while it should be deleted? -- Coasttocoast 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The answer here appears to be the creation of the other articles, not the deletion of this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To reply to the above two editors; the primary reason this is up for AfD is because it violates Wikipedia guidelines on notability and TV shows (I don't have the links at hand but may be able to be convinced to find them). Wikipedia is also not around to provide information on every conceivable random thing. TV show articles that are simply summaries are not supposed to be around; only articles which explain how a particular episode caused a controversy, was news worthy or was a landmark in the series or in television in general should exist. Again, the fact that other shows have many articles does NOT in anyway imply that this article should exist. Indeed, according to Wikipedia's guidelines most of these other TV show articles should ALSO be deleted and I may get around to nominating them soon. --The Way 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on all counts. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you disagreeing with? Should all episodes of notable TV series have their own article? And do you really disagree to "Wikipedia is also not around to provide information on every conceivable random thing"? Delta Tango • Talk 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all episodes should have articles. And I don't agree with providing "information on every concievable random thing." I simply have a hard time believing that a well-known cartoon from Disney would fall under that umbrella. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't. Secondly, deleting something because "no other episodes are covered" is a profoundly stupid reason... Wikipedia always will have somewhat asymetric coverage because the editors/writers decide what is interesting to them. It is not a paper work, as has been brought out. The proper way to handle unreasonable asymetry is to focus on expanding the other content not to destroy what is already there! Bryce 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hopefully this is enough to end debate... In looking up specific Wikipedia policies you can find on WP:NOT the following rules which imply that this article should be deleted.

1. Wikipedia articles can NOT simply be plot summaries. "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Does this particular episode have a major, real-world context? Has it provoked controversy? Is it genre-defining? If not, then delete.

2. Wikipedia is NOT a directory. "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business" are not allowed. Essentially, having articles for individual TV episode falls under the category of 'TV guides' and amounts to a directory, therefore it is not allowed.

3. According to Wikipedia's notability standards for fiction, "It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own." If the information in this article must be kept, then it really needs to be merged into the article about the television show itself. --The Way 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is nothing but a plott summary. -- Whpq 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Way. The show itself barely manages to be notable, individual episodes really are not. Risker 16:05, 29 October 2006 (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.