Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suicide (Seinfeld)

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Suicide (Seinfeld)[edit]

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

This episode of Seinfeld fails to meet the GNG or the interpretation of it given in FICTION. TV plot articles without any clear rationale for significance fail the definition of WP:IINFO#1. This article may be suitable for creation at http://seinfeld.wikia.com but Wikipedia is not for episode guides or a fansite. This article has been around since 2006 waiting for evidence of significant impact (and yes, there is no evidence of anything on GNews archives or in GBooks) so raising for AfD rather than PROD. Fæ (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with a Caveat I am of the camp that think that not every episode in a series deserves an article. If you look at something like Family Guy, which I do like as a show, most of the articles are GA class because there is a group of people that watch the show, put the work in, and make sure that whenever anyone mentions that maybe, just maybe, every single episode isn't notable, there is a roar to drown the idea out. Well, if it is going to be psudo-policy that every episode in a series gets a page, this page shouldn't be deleted. That being said, it needs sourcing work, preferably before this AfD is over. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Without going into the huge history here of battles over episode articles vs. season summaries, each seinfeld ep seems to have its own article, so that's the categorization scheme we've installed for this series. This is usually only the case for very popular series.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Much to my continual bafflement, Seinfeld is undoubtedly one of the most notable, successful and influential shows in the history of television. I'm quite prepared to accept that it's one of those few shows that can sustain an encyclopaedic article on each and every one of its episodes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LoE. Currently only consists plot in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, no indication why this is WP:NOTABLE. That nearly every other Seinfeld episode has a plot-only article is a sign that more articles should be deleted/merged/redirected, not all of them kept (WP:OTHERSTUFF). The article should be allowed to be recreated easily if and only if the NOT#PLOT and NOTABILITY can be figured out, therefore I prefer redirection instead of deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't matter how famous Seinfeld is, this article is currently completely void of independent sources and currently fails both WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help - Isn't there a policy or guideline somewhere that says plots (book, TV, movie, etc.) don't need to be based on reliable source material and a Wikipedian editor can merely summarize the plot so long as the plot remains close to the actual plot? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it! Wikipedia's kiss of death says: Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material. This style of writing should be preferred for plot summaries that encompass multiple works, such as a series of novels. Such conventions are not as important for plot summaries of single works, such as novels that are not part of a series; nevertheless, some real-world language at the beginning of such summaries is often good style. The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct, so all that has to be done is get the rest of the article to meet WP:GNG, which currently it does not. Fæ (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You simply can't delete one seinfeld ep without considering that we have articles on every episode. You would upset a long term organization plan for this content.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFF. All those articles should be redirected/deleted if they don't meet WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GNG. There hasn't been any sign of a long term organization plan in the past 4.5 years, so let's finally (re-)organize them à la "No established notablity, no article". – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deletion decisions are not made on the status of the article but on the likelihood of material being available for the article to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia's kiss of death provides the significant bulk text to maintain the article. Then it is only a matter adding citations to the article for material outside the plot, which can be done per my below post. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The likelihood of material being available for the article to meet WP:GNG seems to approach zero after 4.5 years of no-one establishing the notability of this episode. Now the onus is on the people who argue otherwise (WP:PROVEIT). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you know how many articles could be sourced that aren't sourced after more than 5 years? Scads of them.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure you can summarize the plot. That's what episode lists and season articles are for. They can cover plot summaries as well as the trivial real-world information of an infobox and a lead. They are also in accordance with WP:AVOIDSPLIT, unlike this episode article. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The unsourced, Wikipedia editor original created plot (justified by the Wikipedia kiss of death guidline noted above linked from the NOT policy) provides enough material from which to maintain a stand-alone article on the topic. With the quantity of available material satisfied, we then turn to other policy guideline issues. NOT says strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary. Well, this page has a lead, an Infobox Television episode template, and a Seinfeld template - certainly more than consisting only of a plot summary. In view of the popularity of Seinfeld, there is no double that reliable sources have discussed this eposide, a summarization of which can be added to the article. Here are books having Seinfeld in the title and discussing Suicide, much of the reliable source text of which can be added to the article. Here are books having suicide in the title and mentioning Seinfeld - a likely source of reliable source material. And the motherload, this is 1,120 books mentioning Seinfeld and suicide, surely enough reliable source material is in there to move this article further away from NOT#PLOT than it already is. Because there is enough material to maintain a stand-alone article on the topic (via the free flowing plot) and there is no double that reliable sources exists to continue to move this article further away from a plot summary only article, the article should be kept. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be confusing TV episode guides with reliable sources that might demonstrate notability of this episode in a meaningful encyclopaedic sense. The plot summary guidelines in MOS and NOT that you have quoted are unambiguous and clear in stating that articles should not be mere non-notable shells around an episode plot summary. Wikipedia is not a TV series fan-site. Fæ (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plots should be based on reliable source material like all other article content. Wikipedia kiss of death allows a Wikipedia editor to add plot content, making that Wikipedia editor a relialble source for the plot. That plot text counts as reliable source material that goes towards satisfying WP:N. (If it wasn't reliable source material, then it would not be allowed in the article, would it). That is why I call plot Summaries the Wikipedia kiss of death because true reliable source material is what separated Wikipedia from the rest of the Internet website. With that boundary broke for plots, just about all plot base media topics will find a home in Wikipedia, including anime, Pokémon, wrestling events (which are scripted so that they do have plots), etc. With the lines blured between fan websites and Wikipedia's plot based topics, Wikipedia is moving towards fan website for plot based topics. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The end of the quote you cited above says: "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary." Articles should only exist for these kinds of topics if they are backed up with non-plot information, citing reliable sources (therefore passing WP:GNG). Jujutacular ^talk 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of episodes. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 1 December 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.