Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boondocks episode articles

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 Keep All. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Boondocks episode articles[edit]

I like The Boondocks, but the articles are all unsourced, failing to meet WP:V and WP:EPISODE and appear to be non notable. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 05:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the nominator, but something's wrong here - the AfD tags on the individual articles are missing. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but... if the nomination process isn't complete, as Lover points out, the articles aren't actually up for debate. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of tagging the articles now. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I didn't have time to tag them, I had to go somewhere. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episode Return of the King is notable and meet WP:V but not WP:EPISODE and should therefore as far as I understand be rewritten and not deleted. Brainz (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think these necessarily deserve deletion. The deserve to be written and sourced better; that's a distinction we draw here all the time. Deletion seems like the lazy solution to me (that's not directed at anyone in particular); we should be trying to fix the unsourced articles. See the section Dealing with Problem Articles in WP:EPISODE --CastAStone|^(talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the pages fans like to read about the episodes and read things they might not have thought about when they watched the show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.88.183 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the fans like it is not a valid argument. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CasrAStone. Also, they should be taken on an individual basis. Some of these articles meet the criteria, some don't. Many of these articles can easily meet WP:V if editors put some time into them. WP:EPISODE is not policy but a guidleine that can be easily met with some work. MrBlondNYC (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, these articles have not grown beyond a simple plot summary (with the possible exception of one). So per WP:NOT#PLOT, there's no content worth keeping here. Short plot summaries are already contained in List of The Boondocks episodes. If for some episodes, out-of-universe content can be found based on independent sources, then add it to that list - and break out individual episode articles when the accumulated content becomes too long. (See WP:SUMMARY.) But at this time, deletion or redirection seems to be the best option. (I'm not quite sure about the redirects, since I do not think that "Ballin' (The Boondocks)" etc. are likely search terms.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects make it possible for the general editor to recreate this article in an encyclopedic manner (if, against all predictions, secondary sources exist), or to transwiki to a fan wiki. Deletion leaves no traces other than a log entry. Redirection is a common way to deal with non-notability-establishing episode articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of The Boondocks episodes for being non-notable, except keep Return of the King (The Boondocks), which seems to have created some controversy, and merge The Block Is Hot. Transwiki as an editorial option (also possible after the redirect). If someone is able to demonstrate reliable secondary sources for the many claims of trivia and allusions (I am completely unfamiliar with the show), I'd be happy tp reconsider. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per cast a stone. Deletion continues to not be a replacement for clean up. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to clean up here - the episode list has already been created, see List of The Boondocks episodes. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all episodes that are just plot summary and trivia should be redirected. Any that have real world context should be kept such as The Return of the king episode. Might also want to consider relisting separately. Ridernyc (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per CastAStone|^(talk). dposse (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, absolutely - Keep for as long as every single episode of Family Guy gets its own long, plot-repeating, trivia-heavy article. I like Family Guy a lot -- it's funnier -- but The Boondocks is a far more notable show. It's socially relevant, sometimes controversial, etc. I wouldn't mind if we deleted the episode articles for BOTH Family Guy and The Boondocks (not to mention the not-even-slightly-notable Futurama), but if we only delete The Boondocks episode articles, what does THAT say? --63.25.9.208 (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing The Boondocks episodes here, and they should be evaluated against the guidelines (WP:EPISODE,WP:NOT). Whether episode articles for other shows do exist or do not exist doesn't play much of a role. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, notable. Everyking (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, anyone interested in starting a Wikiproject The Boondocks to clean up and improve all of the Boondocks tv show articles? †Poison the Well† (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per 63.25.9.208. 70.146.244.10 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep all, listen we need to have separate pages for each episode if you don't like the build stop being lazy and edit them. also this is boondocks after all if we do something F**ked up all it takes is one psychotic poster with a myspace,Yahoo, and Xbox live to turn this into a internet controversy and maybe something worst. Deanostrodamus the Mystical (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, these are excellent subject matter. If there is any problem with the sourcing or attribution, the articles should be improved, not deleted.Pawsplay (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question is, do substantial indepedendent sources about individual episodes exist at all? So far no one has come up with any. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All, Or otherwise go on a crusade of deleting every unnotable episode article in Wikipedia. Either way, each Boondocks episode can actually stand on it's own regardless of it being a whole series. I also agree with the lazy comments, stop being lazy, be bold by being creative, not destructive. --DrunkCat (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Maybe some of the plot summaries should be cleaned up (no more quotes or opinions of allegorical commentaries), but this stuff is what wikipedia should be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.133.190 (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2007 (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.