Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas

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 all. Secret ^account 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Scooter for Yaksmas[edit]

Contested prod. These are all articles for individual episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show. They consist of overlong plot summaries, infoboxes with non-free images, and long quote sections bordering on script excerpts. As of the time of this nomination, not a single one of these fifty articles contains a reference to any source whatsoever, reliable or not. These are not encyclopedia articles, and have practically no hope of ever becoming so.

The prod contester removed the prod saying that he desired the content of the articles merged and redirected to List of episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show. There is no content to merge, as the episode list already contains brief plot summaries appropriate to a list. Redirecting is needless, as not a single one of these article titles make a reasonable search term. Therefore, I ask that we delete all of these articles. ➪HiDrNick! 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These episodes aren't notabile fiction. R&S is a notable show, but each episode isn't individually notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a dog of a show like Star Trek: Enterprise has a List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes and a page for each one. As to the plot summaries being improper, or the content being problematic, that is a reason to improve, not delete. It is common for popular shows to have a page for each episode, and I would think that the concensus view is that R&S is certainly notable enough to be afforded the same inclusion. Pharmboy (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1)Star Trek: Enterprise was a great show. 2)See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TJ Spyke 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom., WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:Television episodes. As regards Star Trek Enterprise, WP:WAX.

From WP:NOT#PLOT:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.

From WP:Television episodes:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ...it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available.

As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation.

JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all. Per WP:EPISODE, nn episodes should be redirected, but leaving this on wikipedia is in some cases like leaving a copyright violation easily accessible, and I see little point in wikipedia hosting them. If someone really wants to transwiki, allow it per request. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT the list already has the necessary summaries, episode numbers, and airdates so nothing to merge. Redirects unneeded as no GFDL info is being merged from one to the other. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the list only contains that information for the first two seasons. There is still some merging work to be done on the rest of the list. Catchpole (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —➪HiDrNick! 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Go after the episodes of Enterprise next!! Nearly all TV episodes-- even of popular series-- leave no lasting impression on popular culture. There are a handful, like the Carbon Creek episode of Enterprise, that fans enjoy, but most episodes are of the "keep channel surfing" variety. Mandsford (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Episodes of Star Trek are notable for being widely reviewed; I'd be careful extrapolating from Ren and Stimpy to Star Trek. =) Powers ^T 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close This nom is way too broad. At least break it up by season. There is no reasonable way to establish notability for every episode of The Ren and Stimpy Show ever. This certainly isn't working "collaboratively and constructively" per the recent arbitration. --Phirazo 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That arbitration was about unilateral large-scale blankings and redirections of episode articles. It concluded that WP:Television episodes should be applied consistently, and that editors should work collaboratively and constructively. That's why we're here. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment is saying that large scale deletions like this make it difficult to establish notability seperately. There may be a notable episode or two, but it gets lost in the crowd. It is not constructive to simply delete the entire lot. --Phirazo 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the nominator has gone and tagged every one of these articles, he or she has followed the process. I love the effort to find some technicality to throw out the discussion. Break it up by season and start over? Ren and Stimpy was not some epic saga. As with most cartoons, there was no difference between one season and the next. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I can understand and appreciate your concern, but I can assure you that I am not trying to sneak anything by anyone, and that these articles are substantially identical in both style and structure, each one as lousy as the last. To wit, I can hereby certify that as of the time of my nomination, not a single one of these articles contained a single reference to any source whatsoever. Believe me, I looked; I would be very embarrassed to nominate a notable article for deletion. Without sources, there can be no verifiable assertion of notability. ➪HiDrNick! 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some improvements to Son of Stimpy adding in sources and further third party commentary. Catchpole (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, notable. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and kudos for tackling the whole batch; above delete opinions have give all the relevant WP:whatevers, so no need to repeat. Non-notable plot; next. --Jack Merridew 11:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and hats off for th nom for this bold editing initiative. All these articles fail WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF nor do they have any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability under WP:FILM or WP:FICT. They read like TV guide summaries, and fall outside the scope of Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - deleting these articles would be contrary to WP:EPISODE, which would mandate the articles being redirected back to the parent article - List of episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show. As to the question of whether reliable sources can be found for these shows, a quick google search reveals that the New York Times has a number of reviews from the first run of the show which could be used [1], [2], [3] which mention Emmy award nominations and ratings "astonishing for Nickelodeon". The book Nickelodeon Nation (ISBN 0814736513, New York University Press) has a chapter on Ren and Stimpy which "provides a fascinating look at the wide commercial and audience success of a controversial show that perhaps ought to have been marketed to adults rather than children." [4] and academic Mark Langer's "Animatophilia, Cultural Production and Corporate Interests" is a "serious study of Ren and Stimpy". (Animation World Magazine - issue 3.7 - October 1998). Finally the DVD releases includes commentary and introductions from creator John Kricfalusi and have also caused a number of reviews to be published that analyse individual episodes. [5]. There are many ways for editors to start improving these articles, deletion should only be considered after other searches have proved fruitless. Catchpole (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong, but it seems that all of your sources address Ren and Stimpy as a whole, or in large parts. None of them get down to the level of individual episodes. Even the last link reviews only the "Lost Episodes" DVD as a whole. No one's denying that the show is notable, but individual episodes just don't have a level of independent coverage that merits individual articles. Powers ^T 15:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, these are great sources for the main Ren and Stimpy article, and I hope to see them included if they are not already. ➪HiDrNick! 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My understanding is that DVD commentaries have been used as sources in a number of individual Simpsons episodes articles. There is no reason the same could not be done here. These articles should at least be redirects and merged (List of episodes of The Ren and Stimpy Show could also do with some work), if you don't the chances are they will be re-created by editors unaware of this discussion. Catchpole (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These fail our notability standards by a country mile & can be more than adequately covered at the LOE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Since notability is not inherrited. A show might be notable but its individual episodes are not necessirly so. The sort of detail in these articles would be much better placed in a fansite. A1octopus (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Coolgamer (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may agree, but why? Pharmboy (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as completely non-notable and potentially merge into a list. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Whiz on the Electric Fence Delete these all. They are fun, but not encyclopedic because there is no indication of notability. We should allow recreation of individual episode articles if reliable sources can be found. It will be better for Wikipedia to delete all then to recreate a few, than deleting them one by one. Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 18 January 2008 (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.