Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Monk Gets Lotto Fever

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 merge to Monk (series 7). Stifle (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Monk Gets Lotto Fever[edit]

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

Writing an article about every TV episode of a series doesn't seem helpful. The series may be notable but not every single episode deserves an article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though it may not be one of the more memorable episodes of the series, it is nevertheless an important installment in a popular series. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? What makes this episode notable? The article is basically just a plot synopsis. There is no indication this episode won any awards, was discussed at length in the media, or was notable for any other reason other than it happens to be an episode of a popular TV show. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, I agree, the article should be expanded beyond a basic plot synopsis. However, based on various precedents in TV shows (such as the low-rated Arrested Development, which has an article for every episode), I think this episode (and many others) deserve articles. I'm not saying we should throw Other Stuff Exists out the window, just that we go off precedent here. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To a "List of episodes" of the series. "I Like It" is not a sufficient justification for separate articles about every single episode of a TV series. If the episode has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, it does not pass notability. Edison (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Default to keep per obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. I can't vote to delete when the nominator's rationale is simply, "Wikipedia just has too darn many episode articles. I don't like episode articles. This shouldn't have an episode article because episodes aren't notable." Vodello (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of episodes. Agreed with Vodello, though, IDONTLIKEIT noms should be avoided. Aditya Ex Machina 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. The series may be notable, but the individual episodes don't inherit their notability from the series itself when standing alone. Triona (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I share the nom's concerns, but we do tend to keep most individual show recaps so long as they're reasonable, and the series is of at least a certain threshold notability. This one appears to be that. However, I'd galdly reverse that position if someone started mass creating stubs. This article isn't that though. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I would also support an RfC to define more precise limits on this issue. Because I don't know if every cartoon ever shown should have an article, but every episode of The Sopranos should have one, but that's my own personal bias, which is why maybe we need a better criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the criteria should be better. I don't know if this is the place to discuss such a thing, but I've noticed various discrepancies, such as every episode of House or Seinfeld having an article, when some are barely memorable. Of course, that may just be because no one has noticed them yet. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A worldwide syndicated TV show, every episode is notable. Citybrand (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Citybrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and redirect per above; nom's issues aside, not all TV series episodes are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monk (season 7) per TPH. No sources evident, so no prejudice to being recreated or kept when and if reliable secondary sources (e.g., reviews) are added. Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect. No evidence of WP:Notability, violates WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 12 August 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.