Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casus Belli (Jericho episode)

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 Jericho episodes, let someone do the merge from there, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid agruement. Secret ^account 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casus Belli (Jericho episode)[edit]

A google search turned up nothing to indicate notability of this TV show episode. A wiki for this show exists, at jerichowiki.cbs.com AnteaterZot (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google searches may not accurately reflect available information; furthermore, the "wiki" is sponsored and hosted by the show's broadcaster for promotional purposes, and should not be considered a replacement site. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your alternative to Google searches? Do you have a source demonstrating notability that I couldn't find via Google? Because I tried and failed to find any source at all. AnteaterZot 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN unsourced no real world notability, fails WP:EPISODE by a long long way. RMHED (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and redirect. WP:EPISODE specifically states "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research." As this article is neither "unverifiable" or "original research", it should not have been proposed for deletion. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. WP:Episode cannot supersede notability requirements, which this article fails. AnteaterZot 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I would like to know what about this is not original research.Ridernyc (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries written by watching the episode aren't original research... they're a valid use of primary sources, as long as they're simply stating things that anyone who watched the episode could say without synthesis/interpretation. Pinball22 14:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is still not notable. AnteaterZot 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to keep. I know about other stuff existing, but I don't see the logic in deleting this particular episodes, and not the others in the same season. I know it's supposed to be article-by-article, case-by-case, but I still can't ignore the fact that the other episodes in the same series, in the same season, have articles about them. As I've stated, I'm inclined to keep for now. --Son (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I prodded a bunch of episode articles, but this one is here because it was deprodded. AnteaterZot 18:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete/Merge(changed from keep) per WP:EPISODE Gtstricky 15:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first line of WP:Episode states "All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, which state that: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This episode fails that requirement; the article should be delėted. AnteaterZot 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : AnteaterZot's argument, A wiki for this show [already] exists, at jerichowiki.cbs.com, is plain ridiculous : my dictionary already talks a lot about Napoleon, so let's delete the wiki article about him... AnteaterZot has to learn the goal of an encyclopedia kernitou talk 07:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:EPISODE is just a guideline and is not set in stone. This should be kept as TV episodes are generally notable. Redrocketboy 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, especially since I checked for sources before nominating this article. AnteaterZot 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Google search is not a check. The Internet isn't the world. Redrocketboy 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying sources exist isn't enough. You must provide the sources. AnteaterZot 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I added three links to what look like reviews. Whilst they aren't the best sort of sources, they show that the episode is notable enough to have been reviewed. Red rocket boy 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, at least you tried. AnteaterZot 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge into season page; reviews, in my opinion, are not sufficient for notability. Most episodes of a show will be reviewed by someone, so it's really not a particularly useful lens to use. There is still nothing that seems to assert that this episode was particularly important in real life, as you can say about the final episode of M*A*S*H* etc. It would be better to shorten it and merge it with other episodes in a season page or delete it. Epthorn (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:48, 8 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.