Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scars and Souvenirs (Grey's Anatomy)

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 redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scars and Souvenirs (Grey's Anatomy)

(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) 01:10, 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) 03:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). bd2412 T 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, especially expanding the plot section . . What the plot section needs is expansion: the content is just mentioned, not described. It makes little sense unless one already knows everything before and after. 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 as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. It's odd to see an objection that it uses a common format--we would expect it to, just like all articles on settlements, or sports events--they all have defined formats. Just like them, all television series articles in fact are going to need to discuss the same sorts of things. If the format were different for each, the material would be much less readable.
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.This nomination is especially telling, in that the article is completely unlike the two articles before it in the list, and different objections would hold: one is too scanty, one others too detailed. It thus makes it clear that the nom. and the delete !voter above have either not read the article, or not bothered thinking about it, or perhaps consider all episode articles identical no matter what they say. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no argument to keep based on notability here.Curb Chain (talk) 05:36, 5 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability. But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy). Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 23:21, 17 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.