Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Law & Order: Los Angeles episodes

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. extransit (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Law & Order: Los Angeles episodes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's way too soon to create this article. Casting is not even complete yet nor has the show started filming. All that is known is the title of the first episode. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and can always be recreated when more is known. Redfarmer (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and flag as stub. It is not WP:CRYSTAL to create this article. Some future content might be speculative, but the current content looks good and the article itself is a keep. patsw (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since deleting and restarting would be a waste of time, and the consensus seems to be that one function of WP is to keep track of raw data on every TV show that ever existed.Borock (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's been announced in RS'es, a stub article is appropriate. Announced episodes of ongoing TV series are routinely added to such lists before airing--e.g., List of House episodes. Jclemens (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with protest I know this will have no effect, but it would be much better to redirect readers to the official sites of TV programs for lists of episodes etc. Much better all around, for readers who would get up to date official information, for the shows who would get traffic to their sites, for WP editors who would be freed up to do more important things, and (IMO) for WP itself. Borock (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor as the page may seem now, it is not like how when most shows that are created or a new season comes in, people add false/speculted information with no references. This page has complete credible references. Honestly it has a professional look about itself unlike most pages (List of Law & Order: SVU episodes), as long as the page is not like that one... it seems fine to me to stay. If redirected people will come in a undo/redo it countless times; which in itself would be time wasted.--SVU4671 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want the closing admin to note, for the record, that there has only been one policy based argument for keep, that of patsw. The other arguments have been variations of WP:LOSE, WP:NOHARM, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:LIKE. It may still be deleted because of patsw's current well phrased argument, but I just want it noted that no one else has given a valid argument for keep. Redfarmer (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:IAR because WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY can be used also, both of which are policies. 76.66.193.119 (talk)
Keep if it's been announced in RS'es, a stub article is indeed appropriate. Announced episodes of ongoing shows are oftenly added to such lists before airing.--66.217.112.3 (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to the series article. It's widely advertised as airing for the fall season. Redirect with keeping the history intact also works, since you can just restore and work on it when the first episode airs. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've gone and looked over the page with a 'fine toothed comb'; everything is in proper order. Credible/reliable references/sources, the information in the table's are correct; most pages with episode listings before the show airs or a new season starts; misinformation is added, false statements, 'fake episodes', uncredible references from places like; Facebook, Twitter, IMDb, SpoilerTV. I must say this page has taken a step in the right direction. I think it should just stay; as it was mentioned if redirected people WILL indeed come in and undo the work before September 22. As long as everything here now and added in the future is credibly sourced, I really do not see a problem with the page staying up.--PaulaSVU (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (EC) Everything on the list has been verified to date. If something on the list changes, then it can be changed accordingly. That is not a reason to delete. Tavix | Talk 17:20, 16 July 2010 (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.