Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy)
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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy)[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 1. Snotbot t • c » 00:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow: That other episode AfD you referenced got only one vote in two weeks! Do we have articles on all GA episodes, on just some, or almost none?--Milowent • hasspoken 22:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it looks like a slew of episodes have been nominated for deletion, please reference that especially if the nominations are identical.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the article creator should be notified of these AfDs, correct?--Milowent • hasspoken 22:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not necessary. It is actually best practice to separate nominations because each article just might have a different threshold of notability.Curb Chain (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "might have"? If you don't know, this is very problematic--why would you destroy content with such reckless abandon? Better to have a global discussion first. Second, its good practice to notify the article creator, whether its required or not.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused: the articles have been nominated separately because each article may have different reasons to be deleted. That is the purpose of not lumping a debate discussion together.Curb Chain (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's my problem. Its wrong to say each article "may have" different reasons to be deleted -- that means you don't know, yet you are the person who made a slew of separate AfD nominations with no differentiation. Now on the 9 February AfD list, we have no less than 47 relisted Grey's Anatomy articles. There are random votes in some of these, keeps or deletes, which could affect the outcome of those discussions even though the relevant issues are identical across many or most of the articles. At least two episodes have been identified that were nominated for an emmy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh, the Guilt (Grey's Anatomy) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From a Whisper to a Scream. Who knows what else we could find for the other articles, since you never looked.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric McCormack actually won his emmy nomination for Lows in the Mid-Eighties, yet the article is not notable. I don't see how a emmy nomination makes an episode notable.Curb Chain (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you wouldn't think so, because its easier to nominate 47 article for deletion without giving a shit about who worked on those articles.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the creation of the article was misguided, and discovered years later to fail notability, it doesn't matter who wrote the articles because we simply have no separate grandfather clause for keeping non notable articles on the basis of who wrote them.Curb Chain (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It matters to who wrote them that you give them a review before carelessly nominating them for deletion. Unless you want to drive away even more editors from the project. And really, you have no basis for saying whether creation of the individual articles was misguided. You simply have done no individual research on them that I can discern.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The First Cut Is the Deepest (Grey's Anatomy) (Episode
12 Season 1) history: Created by 01:48, 4 March 2007 Sfufan2005 - A Hard Day's Night (Grey's Anatomy) (Episode
21 Season 1) history: Created by 01:42, 4 March 2007 Sfufan2005 - 1st 2 articles created by same creator with in 7 minutes of each other. Do you think the creator considered the notability of these episodes before he created them?Curb Chain (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The First Cut Is the Deepest (Grey's Anatomy) (Episode
- It matters to who wrote them that you give them a review before carelessly nominating them for deletion. Unless you want to drive away even more editors from the project. And really, you have no basis for saying whether creation of the individual articles was misguided. You simply have done no individual research on them that I can discern.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the creation of the article was misguided, and discovered years later to fail notability, it doesn't matter who wrote the articles because we simply have no separate grandfather clause for keeping non notable articles on the basis of who wrote them.Curb Chain (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you wouldn't think so, because its easier to nominate 47 article for deletion without giving a shit about who worked on those articles.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric McCormack actually won his emmy nomination for Lows in the Mid-Eighties, yet the article is not notable. I don't see how a emmy nomination makes an episode notable.Curb Chain (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's my problem. Its wrong to say each article "may have" different reasons to be deleted -- that means you don't know, yet you are the person who made a slew of separate AfD nominations with no differentiation. Now on the 9 February AfD list, we have no less than 47 relisted Grey's Anatomy articles. There are random votes in some of these, keeps or deletes, which could affect the outcome of those discussions even though the relevant issues are identical across many or most of the articles. At least two episodes have been identified that were nominated for an emmy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh, the Guilt (Grey's Anatomy) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From a Whisper to a Scream. Who knows what else we could find for the other articles, since you never looked.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused: the articles have been nominated separately because each article may have different reasons to be deleted. That is the purpose of not lumping a debate discussion together.Curb Chain (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "might have"? If you don't know, this is very problematic--why would you destroy content with such reckless abandon? Better to have a global discussion first. Second, its good practice to notify the article creator, whether its required or not.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not necessary. It is actually best practice to separate nominations because each article just might have a different threshold of notability.Curb Chain (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have episodes all the way to Season 5 inclusive. "What Have I Done to Deserve This?" (episode 19 season 2) was redirected. Episodes 8-12 inclusive of season 4 do not have episodes. Season 6 & 7 have some articles. Season 8 have none. Episodes where made in nearly identical style.Curb Chain (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. The article (as with the other articles in the series) meets NOT PLOT: there are about three times as many words of unduplicated information about production elements as about the plot. What the plot section needs is expansion: various patients are mentioned, but we are not told what becomes of them. That's using a TEASER, rather than fully encyclopedic writing; it's too much in the manner of a TV guide. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even worse. A plot summary needs to be long enough to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is of course the episode itself, as it ought to be. The source for the production data does need to be stated. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. Trying to remove articles like this makes it harder to deal with the ones that do need deletion . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or delete. Article has existed for five years and has been tagged for apparently lacking notability for one year, but it still doesn't have any sources. This seems sufficient proof that either it is non-notable, or no-one wants to work on it to pass WP:SPINOUT. The episode list can take care of the plot and relevant production data just fine; anything else seems to be WP:PLOT, WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. – sgeureka t•c 15:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete striking- see below.Of the six references, four do not mention the title. Of the two survivors, one is very definitely a passing mention. and the other has only two sentences on the episode. This is clearly not in-depth coverage. Tigerboy1966 14:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: The article had no references 10 minutes ago. That is what I was easily able to find, its clear the nominator has made no effort to determine if any of the 47 nominated articles are notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The fact that the nomination procedure left much to be desired is irrelevant to the fact there are no references which cover this episode in detail. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Can you not read?--Milowent • hasspoken 19:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I can read. None of the sources for this article are from reputable academic publishers or news organisations, most of the coverage is very limited in scope or from unreliable sources such as Grey's Anatomy 101: Seattle Grace, Unauthorized. Indepth review from a major news publisher or notable figure in television would change my mind, but I just don't see any notability at the moment. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes Grey's Anatomy 101: Seattle Grace, Unauthorized? It doesn't appear to be self-published, although I could be wrong. So unless the publisher has a bad reputation in terms of accuracy or fact-checking (again, a possibility but doesn't seem obvious to me) I am not sure why it should be considered unreliable. Rlendog (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have found the answer to my own question. The book is a collection of essays. That doesn't necessarily make it an unreliable source; some of the essays may well be factual and appropriate, even scholarly, but I can see why its reliability is at least questionable. Rlendog (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes Grey's Anatomy 101: Seattle Grace, Unauthorized? It doesn't appear to be self-published, although I could be wrong. So unless the publisher has a bad reputation in terms of accuracy or fact-checking (again, a possibility but doesn't seem obvious to me) I am not sure why it should be considered unreliable. Rlendog (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I can read. None of the sources for this article are from reputable academic publishers or news organisations, most of the coverage is very limited in scope or from unreliable sources such as Grey's Anatomy 101: Seattle Grace, Unauthorized. Indepth review from a major news publisher or notable figure in television would change my mind, but I just don't see any notability at the moment. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Can you not read?--Milowent • hasspoken 19:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of sources added by Milowent. Although some of them are just tv listings and could be removed without affecting quality, there are a couple which go into more detail. Brief and mild rant follows: If the creators of articles on viable topics took the time to collect decent references before publishing we would all be saved a lot of time. Tigerboy1966 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hear ya. Indeed, its no doubt much easier to find these references when the episode is fresh too, even if notability for an individual article is not yet clear.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is almost irrelevant: You can take a ton of passing mentions in newpapers et al. and that still doesn't establish notability.Curb Chain (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear ya. Indeed, its no doubt much easier to find these references when the episode is fresh too, even if notability for an individual article is not yet clear.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per DGG, and the fact that the article now has sources. As stated, the criteria is unsourceable, not unsourced. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the criteria are not the ones that DGG has stated. Articles are deleted on the basis that they have do not have sufficient notability on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm familiar with the criteria, thank you. And, in this case, the article has sources that seem to indicate notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 05:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the criteria are not the ones that DGG has stated. Articles are deleted on the basis that they have do not have sufficient notability on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although I agree with DGG above, I don't see how any of the provided references establish WP:Notability of this episode. Sometimes episodes may reach notability as an episode, but this one doesn't. Now, do I really have to do this for 46 more? Therein lies the problem with this group of nominations. I've never watched an episode of Grey's Anatomy, and I can only rely on reliable sources to tell me what is notable. I also wasn't present at Pearl Harbor in 1941, but I can readily ascertain that events there/then were notable. On the other hand, the upcoming 500th episode of the Simpsons (also a show I do not watch) already meets the notability requirement. Ugh. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to season page. I actually just went through this with a bunch of articles on Chuck episodes, and I did so after consultation with the members of WP:TELEVISION. Their standard form is to have first an article on the show, then on each season, and then on individual episodes only when the individual episode is notable. This particular episode doesn't appear notable: the only unique thing about it is that it is the first episode by a new writer. I don't think this fact alone raises this episode to individual notability.
I'm also not going to go back and vote on the other 46 episodes, but I would suggest that the closing admin either keep them all and let the nom do the redirects if he cares enough to do so, or redirect them all, and let the editors passonate about the series restore those that are really notable and/or pull mergable text out of them.Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Some of the sources that have been added are weak. But overall I think there is just enough to meet WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Final comment': I know no one wants to wade into closing these, so let me share this final comment: Of these 47 afds we still have minimal participation on most of them, and little effort for anyone to determine whether each episodde is individually notable. The nominator did not check any of them before nominating. The outcome of these 47 AfDs really needs to be consistent across the board for us to have a logical scheme for our coverage of this television show. At this point, there is clearly no consensus for how that should be done. A global discussion should be held to address whether all Grey's Anaatomy episode articles should be redirected to their season articles (though you'd better take all the nice content I added to this one and fold it in!!!), or left as is.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:57, 19 February 2012 (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.