Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Dead Man Walking"

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 Delete. There is not really anything to merge since there is no merge location, and there is no need to keep this as a redirect to Taggart since it was at the wrong title to start with (with the quotes). Fram (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dead Man Walking"[edit]

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is about an episode of a show, but gives no explanation as to its notability, and does not list any secondary sources. Fails WP:RS, WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Dead Man Walking: unlike this television episode, the other is clearly notable, and this title wouldn't be an implausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do episodes of shows need to demonstrate notability? I know a lot of serialized shows have an article for every episode (e.g., Prison Break) even though almost none of them are notable on their own. If it really is the case that episodes can inherit notability, then it would be more appropriate to move this to Dead Man Walking (Taggart episode). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the proposal at WP:FICT, an episode would be notable if either it met WP:GNG or the show it was an episode of was particularly notable, the episode is important to understanding the show as a whole and there are sources that give significant real-world information about the episode (e.g. its production, or the influence it has had on other works). This episode fails the second and third of these tests, I think. JulesH (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but didn't that proposal fail? (I wasn't paying close attention towards the end, but that's the impression I got.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EPISODE passed and is a guideline, and it says that WP:GNG must be applied. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a suitable list of episodes. By any standard this article is not acceptable. I think WP:FICT is at point still so much a matter of disagreement that it cannot be used as evidence for any fixed rule, but I have seen nobody there at all that would say that article on episodes are automatically notable, at least except for some very exceptional shows. The default is a combination article. I think it has not yet been started, so it could begin with the material here. DGG (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOT#Plot. There is no suitable place to merge to, and I don't think the title is a likely search term for either the episode of the tv show or the movie or book by the same name. Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Since the ep has no sources on its own, make it part of a list. Ancemy (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list article as is standard. If no such list exists, redirect to series article for now. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list article, or, alternatively, delete. Enigma^msg 05:28, 27 February 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.