Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blind Faith (Quantum Leap)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 List of Quantum Leap episodes. JForget 21:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blind Faith (Quantum Leap)[edit]
- Blind Faith (Quantum Leap) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - no reliable sources indicate that this individual episode is independently notable. Fails WP:GNG. PROD removed without comment but with citation to a book that apparently mentions the episode's existence while not providing any significant coverage as required by our notability guidelines. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TVEP, as it does not meet the general notability guideline. Claritas § 11:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold and redirect it to List of Quantum Leap episodes. Lugnuts (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Quantum Leap episodes--really, that's a no-brainer. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, it's a no-brainer that information that isn't sourced should not be merged into another article that already covers the episode in sufficient detail. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It means turning the article's name into a redirect to the list article while encouraging editors to take material from the original article's history and placing it in the target. Something that we should not be encouraging when the information from the original is without sourcing or otherwise unsuitable (like trivia). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, but those are two of the exact things we should be doing!
- Redirects are cheap, allow people to find what they are looking for. Even when the names with X (Quantum Leap) aren't themselves likely search terms, they're useful in disambiguation pages.
- NN content may indeed be sourced and either readded to the merge target or as the basis of a future breakout article, and leaving it accessible in history to non-administrators is the best way to do this. Hiding inadequate work in histories is the best compromise--such that work is neither put on display, nor erased from the user-accessible wikispace. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, but those are two of the exact things we should be doing!
- No, they aren't useful in DAB pages, because the DAB page should point directly to the episode list without an Easter egg link, and no, we shouldn't encourage the inclusion of unsourced and likely unsourcable material by leaving it in an edit history. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It means turning the article's name into a redirect to the list article while encouraging editors to take material from the original article's history and placing it in the target. Something that we should not be encouraging when the information from the original is without sourcing or otherwise unsuitable (like trivia). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:43, 1 September 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.