Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (5th 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 no consensus. Scott Mac 15:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: The Journey[edit]

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

This article about a clip show has been nominated for deletion four times previously, the last nomination having been over three years ago in 2007. The recap episode aired during Lost's first season. Now that the show has concluded, it should be obvious that this five-year old recap episode is not notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP and the extensive coverage in reliable sources. Not to mention the WP:DEADHORSE aspect of a fifth (really?) deletion nomination. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the first three deletion nominations were ALL in June 2006. The fourth was a few months later. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I see more than enough reliable sources to support an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources are from the period in which the show aired. Who, five years later and beyond, is going to write an article about this clip show as historically important or notable? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter when the sources are from, as long as they discuss the issue in depth? notability is not temporary. Just because it hasn't been in the news recently, doesn't mean the coverage at the time wasn't enough to estabilish notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selective merge if someone is interested in a sourced sentence here or there. The majority of this article is so general that it easily fits in the main article in a broadcast section. Lost had so many clip shows; this one is only "special" because it was the first one. Nowhere special or notable from nowaday's perspective. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lost. It's well-sourced, but the content itself doesn't seem to merit a standalone article as opposed to a mention in the main series article. 28bytes (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As user Umbralcorax said, notability is not temporary. This is article is well sourced and can stand on its own. Merging would require the details of this page to be shrunk into a small summary. Why do that when the current page is a detailed, resourced, synopsis?--LAAFan 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the sourced details of this article are already in the Lost (TV series) article, so instead of "[shrinking] into a small summary" it is removing redundance. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but you are talking about deleting an article that satisfies WP:NRVE. Just because references used in the article are used elsewhere does not mean you should remove redundancy by eliminating a page. Also see WP:Television episodes, which states an episode page is notable if it has received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --LAAFan 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Judging by the sources (all from 2005 or deadlinks), this clip show actually was a "flash in the pan" (i.e. violating NRVE by its own words). But even if it wasn't, I was referring to WP:MERGE and WP:SPINOUT, which give guidance how to deal with sub-notable and/or redundant articles like this one. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merging this article back into Lost or any other article for that matter still shrinks the knowledge given. Unless you put the entire page into the other article, you are depriving readers of the full analysis of that episode.--LAA Fan 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The episode itself is a show about a show. Nothing would be lost that isn't already present in other Lost-related Wikipedia articles. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What would be lost is the info on the clip show (purpose of making, ratings, etc)--LAA Fan 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no enduring notability, and we have more than enough Lost articles as-is. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 28 July 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.