Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scary Monsters and Super Creeps (FlashForward)

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 FlashForward episodes. Black Kite 23:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Monsters and Super Creeps (FlashForward)[edit]

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

Non notable episode. Not enough context to have an article. We have a list of episodes which is just fine. Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to warrant its own article, and has pretty much no content in it. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" - this is a useful episode, they find and start to learn about the blue hand, we must keep it and update it, don't delete it because all of us are to lazy to add more information to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.226.159 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume you mean Keep, given your comment. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect it to the main list, which is common for most unotable episode articles. --TIAYN (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this one, there is no actual content. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may create an article for it later, with decent information... All The X-Files articles were in this state before Sgeureka redirected them all.. --TIAYN (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By my experience a redirect prevents people from writing a good article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of The X-Files and Stargate SG-1/Atlantis/Universe articles are now in good shape, because of merging... More work has been done to make it a good article.. --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tentative Keep. At least has a plot summary now, hopefully ratings, analysis etc will come in due time. If such attention is not forthcoming, then I think we can let it go. Radagast (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Still not sold on this series, or on the fact that its episodes will be notable enough for articles. But I'm not uncomfortable with keeping, for now, until a clearer picture of the series and its notability (and viability) becomes apparent. We can (and should) revisit the question later on, if it looks like the series is less notable than we think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the notability of the series, please see my comment below. Lampman (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all but the first episode. None of them have sources or any evidence of individual notability. Fences&Windows 01:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in its current state. The plot summary is so long and detailed it not only violates WP:MOS, but might actually have copyright issues as well. There is nothing else in the article. If the plot is summarised and production, reception etc. are added, then I'd change my mind. Lampman (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on plot-only description of fictional works, see the relevant Wikipedia policy. For the copyright infringement issue, see this summary of the Twin Peaks Productions vs. Publications International case. This article is clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy, and possibly also of U.S. law. I'm not quite sure why we're even discussing this. Lampman (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This show has not been on long enough for its individual episodes to be notable. Specs112 (Talk!) 14:32, 15 November 2009 (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.