Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Queen (JAG) (2nd nomination)

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, technically. There are two camps here: a majority would like to keep the material, but there is a very well-argued suggestion that this page should be converted to a redirect. That outcome is not precluded. I suggest that further discussion about whether to redirect should take place on the talk page until consensus is reached. What this AfD has found is that Ice Queen (JAG) should not be a redlink. NAC—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Ice Queen (JAG)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no sources. Unsourced for 3 years. Inexplicably kept at last AFD simply because it was also the NCIS pilot — which means not a damn thing since THERE ARE NO SOURCES. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWhile most TV episodes have no real world notability, this one is notable as hell. "Inexplicably kept at last AfD simply because it was also the NCIS pilot"? I guess inexplicable is a matter of opinion, but it's a pretty good explanation. Guest stars Mark Harmon, Michael Weatherly, David McCallum, Pauley Perrette. I'm sure it will be inexplicably kept again. Mandsford 03:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a cursory search shows that there are indeed sources extant... just not in the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? All I see is the user-submitted TV.com (not reliable) and two false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one that discusses the episode as significant within both JAG (as the conclusion of a story arc) and NCIS (as the pilot). One doesn't have to go far, however, to find sources that show that the characters, of one of the most popular shows on television, were introduced on JAG. A book about either of those two series would have that bit of information. Mandsford 14:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but upon consideration, I think this is akin to WP:BAND criterion 6. Since it's verifiable that this exists as part of two notable series, it should be kept rather than redirected or merged to either one. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...I think #6 is stupid, myself. So anything that gets no third party coverage gets exepmtion from WP:GNG just because there are two equally feasible targets for a merge? Get real. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of JAG episodes#Season 8: 2002-2003. I believe that being the pilot episode for NCIS confers enough notability to keep, but I can't find sources for the episode itself or for the re-aired version that fell into NCIS' first season. Lacking sources, a redirect makes the most sense. The key point is that this pilot was actually a two-part episode, ending with Meltdown (JAG). You'll note that Meltdown is already a redirect - and this one should be as well, unfortunately. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redirect doesn't reflect the consensus of more than one person. Seems one of the users took it upon himself or herself to redirect it [1]. Though I disagree with him, kudos to Ten Pound for putting this one to a discussion, instead of that type of "I-know-what's-best" approach. Mandsford 20:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the episode list page noted above. If all that can be said abut a tv episode is a plot summary, then it does not need a standalone article. It appears that none of the other JAG episodes have a separate article; no pilot, no finale, no thrilling end-of-season cliffhangers. I'm wondering if Clemens actually looked to see what his "cursory search" turned up, as I'd hope someone would not try to pass off hits to tv.com's user forums, trivia, and episode listings (i.e. user-driven content like IMDB) as indicators of notability. The google book hit is to a section of a novel about the tv series itself, briefly noting the circumstances of this episode (but not by name) as an example of the overall unreality of the show as compared to the actual Judge Advocate General's Corps. We have no case for notability here; just a vain stretching out into the internet aether to make something out of nothing. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources avaliable and this is important to the build of one of the highest rated TV shows in the US. - Juno2007 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 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.