Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Spoony Experiment 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 No Consensus. The article will be Kept (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Spoony Experiment episodes[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this page is warranted. The Spoony Experiment itself is only just notable. This page is not much more than a list of links, bordering on SPAM. —Half Price 16:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can understand episode lists for TV series, but for a web series it's really stretching it. Also, spammy spam is spammy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into parent article. I see no distinction between series based purely on medium; there is nothing that make a series more or less worthy of a list of episodes just because it is watched through a television or a computer monitor. If direct links are an issue, they can be edited out. I can also update them to the standard episode list format and add more information if necessary (assuming keep or merge is the final decision). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't make it clear that I also find this page guilty of LISTCRUFT. I believe it is 'a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' and is 'unencyclopaedic'. —Half Price 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that those apply to this list. List item criteria is quite clear, the subject is notable, the items are verifiable, everything is neutral. Episode lists of notable series are generally considered "encyclopaedic." What is wrong with this list? Why is this list different? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't agree that just because The Spoony Experiment exists then this should. It's just a list of links - no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. —Half Price 11:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty discriminate to me: it relates directly to another article and its content is limited to (a) The Spoony Experiment show and (b) the episodes thereof. The list is bound by the selection criteria evoked by the list's title. It isn't likely to expand widely out of control or start including random material. More than that, it's not just a list of links; it's a list of episode names, order, release dates and content - that is to say, a standard encyclopaedic episode list. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All shows that are notable, have a list article listing their episodes. This is ALWAYS done. Dream Focus 14:30, 13 November 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.