Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lancelot and Guinevere (Merlin)

Add links
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 and defaulting to keep, though I will note that the concerns regarding the lack of sourcing, and the fact that the plot summary makes up most of (though not all of) the article, have merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancelot and Guinevere (Merlin)[edit]

Lancelot and Guinevere (Merlin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I was unable to find a single reliable source presenting non-trivial coverage of the episode. The article falls under WP:PLOT, as it contains little more than a plot summary, and under WP:EPISODE, as the episode is not notable on its own and thus does not warrant its own article. Odie5533 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell would it need a refference when it has aired in the UK under that name? Goku1st (talk • contribs) 09:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete++ - Need major help here, and sadly the problem is far deeper. WP:SPOILER is needed. Worse, there's an article for every episode of this series without a category being created for them. There are no secondary resources in any article and no external links that aren't BBC press releases. Same objections as above agreed to and likely deletes for everything branching off List_of_Merlin_episodes unless actual justification/notability can be found. I know a ton of work has been put into all those episode articles, but WP:N WP:INFO and WP:NOT in general are all rather violated. I'm sure there's some kind of informative angle authors could use with all of these articles but it'd take a ton of work. Datheisen (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well what if I added the press releases for each episode? Goku1st (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since press releases are primary sources, they do not help in determining notability WP:RS. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is a few realible source for referening to, the merlin site, bbc site, digiguide site that is a few i can think of, and ther no reason for it not to be notable. the page just needs ot be tidied up and catergoies sorted out but how many stub pages are otu there that do not get deleted?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline refers to "significant coverage in secondary reliable source" BBC and the Merlin site are not secondary sources and the Digiguide provides only trivial coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a exmaple of one of the episode which have been done right but still needs more work The Dragon's Call--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination is calling into question the notability of the episode, not specific problems with the article itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, i agree some of the episode do nto have notabilty or have much but some background to them, this episode is quite important in the merlin series it shows the development of how famous king and queen come together, well willl eventally--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I thought "The Dragon's Call" was part of your name, but rather you were referring to an episode of Merlin. Based on the sources of the article, they all seem to refer to Merlin the show more than to the episode, aside from the single Guardian article. Unless more sources exist covering that specific episode, I'd consider it non-notable and the references more useful on a season page or the Merlin series page. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under that pretense then ever epsiode of house , lost and loads of other tv shows should be deleted as the notable is not there. I agree the episode page require clean up and lot mroe work but that does not mean ther enot notable, the first epsiode of a show is probally the most notable as with the finale and dragons call is the firs tepisode. instead of tagging for deletiong why not tag for clean up and more references. notabilty is about where it is encolypedtic or not--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. House has spawned many reviews written about individual episodes, all of which could presumably go towards establishing notability of those episodes. (Those episodes which do not have notability should, of course, not have their own articles.) I'm not for or against deletion, but I don't see that the House comparison favors keeping. WP:CRYSTAL, so we cannot say that the episode will be notable in the future and use that as a reason for notability now. -moritheilTalk 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i was not using it as a reason to keep, i still thinkthe notabilty is there just need more work on it. i was just ssaying that other poplour shows get epsiode articles so in thoery ther enot notable--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here are some secondary sources provign it ntoabilty [1] [2]

this one is unrealible however does prove it notabilty since the main question was no sources for it [3] as i said the article only require work, (well a lot of work tha ti persoanlly cant do but i am willign ot help ones that are doign it liek the creater of the page to do it)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of these sites is debatable. I was writing the reception section with those exact two sources (+one form Den of Geek!), when I figured they were all too unreliable for inclusion, so nominated the article for AfD instead. The nomination here is to determine the notability of the subject, not assess the condition of the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes but the condiotn of aritcle can detict it notabilty if laid out wrongly or done worng it not notable but if done correctly it is, otherwise you are claiming any tv show episode pages are not notable i have provide secondart sources at least one realible and that was what was dispute that ther eno realibel secondary source but having a good look on the internet esicpally uk relate sites there is. there has been some paper reviewing it so there is reliabilty on the source which was youprimary conern for notabilty--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could please share these reliable sources that provide more than just trivial mention of the show, it would certainly help in determining the notability of the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I willt ry track them down but i do have a very strong personal life which takes up most of my time so i can not garantee i will get them (ie a 6week old baby), however The daily record and The time newspaper realible newspaper in the uk both have covered merlin the show in detail and have covered each episode. The realible source are all uk based ones.


  • keep I am changing my vote, I had no idea that so many TV shows had an article for each episode, it seems un-encyclopaedic to me, but this is not the place to debate that (per WP:PRECEDENT) --UltraMagnusspeak 05:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to from the WP:PRECEDENT page are WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:LOSE, and WP:EVERYTHING. And also, WP:POKEMON and WP:INN. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it stands, it has not real-world information and violates WP:PLOT. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Merlin episodes. There is no independent notability for this episode. In the alternative delete but a standalone article isn't support without reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again if this isnt notable nither is a lot of tv show episode articles only a few of them are, look at season 6 episode of house for example none of them are notable as they do not have second party sources, if this is a problem then either all these will need to be brought to afd or a rethink at the project is required--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Articles on episodes which can stay or those with references from notable places which are not related in any manner to producing or distributing them. If you find any other episode which contains only in-universe information, like this one, feel free to redirect them, as they violate all sorts of policy. I generally do not take them to AfD unless someone protests the redirect. You know, be bold and all that. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to try that some time Scapler (talk · contribs), but based on the discussion hear I'd guess that people would oppose the redirect and it would need to be taken here/settled on talk anyways. Never the less, it is worth a shot. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COmment the shows in question will draw a lot of people complaining, just because the show is notable and some episode are they will want all of them kept because ti a big show and a af will jsut get keep even if ther eno realible secondary sources which is being biased then.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are sources for notabilty sicne sources where the main problem, and the reason it hard is one it not logn aired, secondly lancelot and guinevere and the main king of queen of merlin myths so pages well estbalish will come up before pages about the tv show will, that why the other episod epages are easier to find as ther enothing to do with merlin myths as such. Anyway here they are, [4] [5] [6] [7] (this source is consider realible for house episode pages and the main house list of episodes so i cant see why it can be used here) [8] [9] and there will be more source as and when series 2 comes to america and australia, and if you can somehow search the The Daily Record newspaper in the uk and the The Times newspaper in the uk you will fidn reviews on this and other episodes. If this is not good enough for ntoabilty then there will need to be alot of epsiode pages deleted on other shows. The only reason i am against deletion and think it should be kept is because i think the notabilty has been rashily decide as this all came froma google search of 4 pages.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also please bare in mind this is a uk show so search on non uk search engines will not pick it up as easily--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heropress - it's a blogspot with no author listing. TotalSciFi - At least it has a couple editors listing, but I can't speak for its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The review is incredibly short, though might just pass the trivial threshold. The dailyradar link just links to the TotalSciFi page, this is isn't a useful reference. The LiveJournal is, well, it's a LiveJournal; enough said. The SciFi Stream page is trivial and unreliable, they just offer the show for you to watch. SciFi Pulse appears to be self-published, I see no editorial policy and it's a three-man operation. I wouldn't consider any of these reliable sources for anything. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On that note i notice how this will fail AFD because the find soruces is americna which is worng for uk show i think this is now for talk--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are saying here. This is the English Wikipedia, and we only prefer English sources for reference (Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, American, Britain, etc, are all fine), and generally notable topics. This means for a given topic, it doesn't have to be notable in America, but has to meet the general notability guidelines, and when adding references for the page it is nice to have them in English but not necessary. I have never heard of a preference for American references over British ones, and given that this show is created by BBC, I'd expect many or all of the sources to be British. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that because people are not from britian there defautl google will bring up listing that misses uk sites well put them lower down the lsits so secondary sources can be missed since i doubt oyu went through 10 pages of searchs form google or maybe more than 3? i am not havign a dig at you or anyone jsut think if you are goign to say a article is not notable it is best to check sources from the area the articles is from ie this case uk and you find more sources. What do oyu want me to do go find a hundred sources? as it seesm you mind is made up and i beg to differe some of them are realible and you comment where there no secondary sources to confirm it, i also meantion the epsiode titel cause problem due to the merlin myths will bring up more pages on merlin myth than the tv show, that why all the otehr epsiode you can find sources for them easdier, i also state the newspape rin the uk that are reviewing them but you made no maeantion of them. if deleted i will go down the line the user below meantioned and ask admin to move it to my userpage and i will work on it over time.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this particular article I did use the UK Google to try and find sources. I usually go through at least 100 results on Google before calling it quits. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keep This particular episode is a part of a currently airing series, so we have to wait for the series to end to get more reviews (as it was with the first series; when it finished, there were quite some reviews comparing different episodes).

As for the first series episodes (and for all Merlin-related articles, for that matter), I have to agree, they are extremely undferreferenced, but it doesn't mean this can't be changed. For example, Digital Spy had reviews of every episode and of the whole series: [10].

Primaler (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Datheisen mostly. Having an article for every episode in a television series like this violates IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. An article on the episodes which meet our notability guidelines would be appropriate, but an article on every episode is not. A summary of the general plot should be allowed on the series' main article, and if this particular episode makes a difference to the series as a whole it should be noted there. ThemFromSpace 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's too early to say that this episode doesn't have enough reviews, after all it is a currently airing series. In addition, due to interviews and an actual plotline we know it is important to the story core, leading to the eventual marriage of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. With all due respect, I'd suggest we keep the article and make edits for its improvement. ;) JesterCountess[talk•contribs] 01:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it is too early to tell if it has reviews, then it is too early to tell if it will ever be notable. We cannot keep articles in hopes that they may, at some point in the future, be notable. If that were the case, I should have an article, for who's to say that I will not one day be notable; I'm not out of college yet, it is too early to tell of course. On your other point, please note that notability in the plotline has zero to do with real-world notability or notability on Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is not a plot-only description of fictional works, and WP:SBST states: "Notability is not predictable: although a topic that does not meet this guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Works of fiction should not be judged this way. There are many articles about films and books that are not even out yet. Sometimes, they do not even have an official name! And it is absolutely normal. Examples: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film); 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who); article Quantum of Solace was named Bond 22 before the official name was announced. Primaler (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notice that articles like the Harry Potter ones have RELIABLE INFORMATION and are SOURCED. I am afraid that policy is being lost in favor of opinion and WP:ILIKEIT; if you do not believe fiction should be judged in this manner, try to get policy changed. Until then, your comment is decidedly anti-policy. See WP:CRYSTAL for more information on unreleased works. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When HP article was created, it looked like this. A month later. A year later. What I'm trying to say is: the Merlin article in question is a handy and easy to manage place to collect real-world information (including reviews). Basically, isn't this how WP works? You create a stub, add the basic info, collect references, improve the style -- step by step. And now, you're not giving it even a month. Primaler (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
trust me is a common problem with over zealous editors who take some poloicies to seriously, i can se ehte point if i created a article on say List of dummies for babies available the notabitly of that would be very sceptical even tohugh you could even get secondary sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the next Harry Potter film did not have enough reliable sources covering the movie to write a full article about the subject then it should have been deleted rather than waiting for the coverage to be made. We can't anticipate news coverage and reviews and hope they come. WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is taking the guidleines to far, what the point of havinga stub article if it cant eb improved because some zealous editors want to delete it? and do you really think that there would be no news coverge for sucha big film like harry potter? i think the guideliens need ot be tighten up and for editors to realise it guideliens not law--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"do you really think that there would be no news coverge for sucha big film like harry potter?" we aren't the news, nor are we psychics. While it seems reasonable to assume that the Harry Potter film will receive coverage, for smaller films and television shows there is no way to be sure. The point of having stub articles is that the subject itself is notable enough to have an article, but no one has written it yet. All stubs still need to meet the GNG, stubs are not a holding pen for non-notable topics. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its information for the readers, and taking this down means taking every other article down. Each one gives a certain amount of information, so why should this one suffer? It's a page, and wikipedia should be expanded as much as it can, and deleting this article will only decrease the numbers. 89.240.171.242 (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:EVERYTHING, along with a couple more. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We do not want information about fiction exclusively, this is not a fansite, but an encyclopeida. Please prove the encyclopedic worthiness of this topic with real-world information. If you want to provide information on all aspects of fiction, I would direct you to Wikia. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm glad you're entitled to talk (rudely) on behalf of the whole community. Or is it just you and some other bloke you're writing this together with? I reckon, this needs some clarification! Primaler (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this was the IP's first contribution, I would agree with the use of 'we' here as Scapler was referring directly to our (yes, our) WP:PLOT policy. Perhaps if he was referring to a personal essay, or even a guideline, he might use a different pronoun, but it's an established Wikipedia policy. Also, your insulting comments are not needed. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And certainly, being the first-time contributor, he would easily know that it was a policy being referred to, not a personal opinion being expressed. After all, who needs a link or any explanation and stuff. Primaler (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE --Odie5533 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems like it could be rewritten with some sources, it's borderline notable. I guess there must be a huge number of similar articles so a centralized discussion would be much easier, or at least some clear cut rules. Hobartimus (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please address my concern as nominator, namely that the subject is not covered in reliable sources. If you are saying that it can be rewritten with some sources, please, share these sources you have. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you do not think some of the sources are realible doe nto mean they ar enot that is your opinion, some of the soruce i provide are realible but you see them as not, if the articel is kept and the soruces used then take it up at realible sources to get a wider opinion on wether they are realible--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the discussion needs to continue here. Otherwise people could add loads of unreliable sources to non-notable articles to save them from AfD (as I've seen happen before). This does not solve the problem; we need to actually determine the notability of the subject. If you believe one of the sources you cited is reliable, please make a case for its reliability. From WP:RS, "reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Unless it is immediately obvious, please show that the sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This usually requires at least authors, editors, and an editorial policy. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is already a wider opinion; it is at WP:NOTE. A topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc" This means BBC and the like CANNOT establish notability. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is it AFD to decided if a source is realible? that is realible source job, and there no point asking if something is realible if the artice is not to be kept, once a decision on this is made wether it is delete or keep then i might ask if a soruce is realible you say it not i say at 2 of ones i provide are and there non primary sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of sourcing is discussed in AFD on a regular basis as it is often the determining factor in deciding on the disposition. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that means no one users is able to decided it a collectiveness to deecided if a source is realible which is not wha thte above user is doign they claim them to be unrealible but other maybe think they are ( i cant speak for other users i am only going on they say there source)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why this is a discussion. Other editors may or may not discuss teh reliability of the sources, but it is up to them and an admin will determine if concensus is reached based on the entire discussion. For me, the sources do not establish notability as the sites are dedicated to reviewing every episode without any editorial decision on incluision of any specific episode. The coverage is also rather light, and as such does not establish notability. The list of epsiodes already provides a perfectly good target for a redirect and none of the discussion to date has changed my mind on that. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lancelot_and_Guinevere_(Merlin)&oldid=1144318778"