Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 Hour Propane People: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
A Google search will find any of these titles. Yes they exist. What is your point?
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''. it's impossible to form consensus in such a mass AFD as this, discussing merging in wikiproject talk. Also I'm not removing all these AFD tags, as it's so many articles and I have no time for this, let someone else do it. [[User:Secret|Secret]] <sup>[[User talk:Secret|account]]</sup> 21:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
===[[24 Hour Propane People]]===
===[[24 Hour Propane People]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
Line 130: Line 136:
**Regarding [[WP:V]], some of this information appears to be from DVD commentary or something similar. If this is the case, these sources are not cited in any of the articles, unfortunately. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
**Regarding [[WP:V]], some of this information appears to be from DVD commentary or something similar. If this is the case, these sources are not cited in any of the articles, unfortunately. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep all'''. I think there is enough with these articles to keep. Thanks [[User:Lummie|Lummie]] ([[User talk:Lummie|talk]]) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep all'''. I think there is enough with these articles to keep. Thanks [[User:Lummie|Lummie]] ([[User talk:Lummie|talk]]) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per SchmuckyTheCat's arguments and replies to comments.--[[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] <sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Wiki_alf|melmac]]</font></sup> 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per SchmuckyTheCat's arguments and replies to comments.--[[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] [[User_talk:Wiki_alf|<sup style="color:green;">melmac</sup>]] 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' the vast majority of the articles are completely unsourced and consist only of a plot summary. Wikipedia articles should [[WP:NOT#PLOT|not simply be plot summaries]]. Other sections included in several of the articles are "Trivia" and "Cultural References", this is almost all unsourced, unencyclopaedic [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:SYN|synthesis]] - Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#OR|not a publisher of original thought]]. In the very few articles that sources are given they are almost always not [[WP:RS|reliable]] (such as [[IMDB]] or [[TV.com]]) or not independent (such as DVD commentries or comments from the creators of the series). The articles therefore show no evidence that the episodes meet the standards of [[WP:NN|notability]] - having recieved significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - required for inclusion. [[WP:V]] states ''"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."'', it is unlikely such sourcing could be found for the vast majority - and prehaps all - of these episodes/articles. It might be appropriate to [[WP:MERGE|merge]] some information into the main [[King of the Hill]] article such as the awards won by [[And They Call It Bobby Love]] and [[Bobby Goes Nuts]] (if reliable sources that verify the information can be found) but even these accolades are unlikely to have given rise to the significant coverage required to confer notability to the individual episodes themselves. [[User:Guest9999|Guest9999]] ([[User talk:Guest9999|talk]]) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' the vast majority of the articles are completely unsourced and consist only of a plot summary. Wikipedia articles should [[WP:NOT#PLOT|not simply be plot summaries]]. Other sections included in several of the articles are "Trivia" and "Cultural References", this is almost all unsourced, unencyclopaedic [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:SYN|synthesis]] - Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#OR|not a publisher of original thought]]. In the very few articles that sources are given they are almost always not [[WP:RS|reliable]] (such as [[IMDB]] or [[TV.com]]) or not independent (such as DVD commentries or comments from the creators of the series). The articles therefore show no evidence that the episodes meet the standards of [[WP:NN|notability]] - having recieved significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - required for inclusion. [[WP:V]] states ''"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."'', it is unlikely such sourcing could be found for the vast majority - and prehaps all - of these episodes/articles. It might be appropriate to [[WP:MERGE|merge]] some information into the main [[King of the Hill]] article such as the awards won by [[And They Call It Bobby Love]] and [[Bobby Goes Nuts]] (if reliable sources that verify the information can be found) but even these accolades are unlikely to have given rise to the significant coverage required to confer notability to the individual episodes themselves. [[User:Guest9999|Guest9999]] ([[User talk:Guest9999|talk]]) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
**I'm not necessarily advocating this, but what would you feel about breaking [[List of King of the Hill episodes]] into 12 "list of X season episodes" and then making the episode articles into redirects? This would allow for more information on notable episodes than the current single-list allows, but avoid the temptation of making any old episode an article. Granted I'm uncomfortable with this idea as it seems unfair to this show, but I thought I'd float it anyway.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] ([[User talk:T. Anthony|talk]]) 08:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
**I'm not necessarily advocating this, but what would you feel about breaking [[List of King of the Hill episodes]] into 12 "list of X season episodes" and then making the episode articles into redirects? This would allow for more information on notable episodes than the current single-list allows, but avoid the temptation of making any old episode an article. Granted I'm uncomfortable with this idea as it seems unfair to this show, but I thought I'd float it anyway.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] ([[User talk:T. Anthony|talk]]) 08:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 146: Line 152:
**The need for clean up is not a valid reason for deletion. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
**The need for clean up is not a valid reason for deletion. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
***The above redirect vote is based on lack of [[WP:N|notability]], not need for cleanup. Lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
***The above redirect vote is based on lack of [[WP:N|notability]], not need for cleanup. Lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*Create an individual article for each season, and '''merge''' each episode into its relevant season article. For example [[King of the Hill (season 6)]]. 250 episodes is far too many for a single list. Since each season is/will be sold as a DVD, a season could be thought of as similar to a film. Reviews of each season are also easier to find, for example these [http://www.dvdmg.com/kingofthehillseason6.shtml] [http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=4356] [http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-05-04/movie_videodvd.php] reviews of season 6. <font color="#1CAFEC" face="Tahoma">[[User:Blathnaid|'''Bláthnaid''']]</font> 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
****The editor states that notability is ''questionable'' and then goes on to discuss that clean up hasn't happened. I'll stick with my original statement, though I agree that notability was raised as a potential issue. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*Create an individual article for each season, and '''merge''' each episode into its relevant season article. For example [[King of the Hill (season 6)]]. 250 episodes is far too many for a single list. Since each season is/will be sold as a DVD, a season could be thought of as similar to a film. Reviews of each season are also easier to find, for example these [http://www.dvdmg.com/kingofthehillseason6.shtml] [http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=4356] [http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-05-04/movie_videodvd.php] reviews of season 6. [[User:Blathnaid|<span style="color:#1CAFEC; font-family:Tahoma;">'''Bláthnaid'''</span>]] 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not generally opposed to this idea . . . but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work -- why not leave it as-is for now? [[User:Jkatzen|Jkatzen]] ([[User talk:Jkatzen|talk]]) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not generally opposed to this idea . . . but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work -- why not leave it as-is for now? [[User:Jkatzen|Jkatzen]] ([[User talk:Jkatzen|talk]]) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' in some reasonable way. Possible by season, as it is too long for a single article. This needn't have come here. Excess tends to produce a disproportionate reaction. this is excess, and if we had avoided it we wouldn't have provoked people into excessive deletion. for that matter, if the anti-article group had kept to patiently merging articles like this, while preserving content, 99% of us would have applauded them, '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' in some reasonable way. Possible by season, as it is too long for a single article. This needn't have come here. Excess tends to produce a disproportionate reaction. this is excess, and if we had avoided it we wouldn't have provoked people into excessive deletion. for that matter, if the anti-article group had kept to patiently merging articles like this, while preserving content, 99% of us would have applauded them, '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 152: Line 159:
*'''Keep''' primarily for procedural reasons. Too many articles to figure out what is notable and what isn't. Though I strongly suspect nearly every KotH episode can be shown to be notable. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' primarily for procedural reasons. Too many articles to figure out what is notable and what isn't. Though I strongly suspect nearly every KotH episode can be shown to be notable. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
**Further, I would like to hear if the nominator actually searched for information on each of these. Deletions should only be proposed when you have put in some effort to see if the article has notability, not just because you suspect it isn't notable. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
**Further, I would like to hear if the nominator actually searched for information on each of these. Deletions should only be proposed when you have put in some effort to see if the article has notability, not just because you suspect it isn't notable. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
**And finally, I want to support my '''keep''' by my arguments made below. Some articles in the group have been shown to be notable. Others may be, but asking for the deletion of such a large group makes it hard to figure out which is which in any reasonable time frame. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
***I don't see why people want 40 separate AFDs. If you cannot be bothered to read the nominated articles, why not leave the voting to people who will? / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
***I don't see why people want 40 separate AFDs. If you cannot be bothered to read the nominated articles, why not leave the voting to people who will? / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
****It's clear to me that some of these articles are notable, and that a quick search would have turned that up. As such, I'm ''guessing'' that he didn't do a search on each of them. To me, that's the bare minimum one should do before coming to AfD. '''The issue isn't if the articles ''as written'' are meet notability guidelines'''. The issue is if they ''can'' meet notability guidelines. '''reading the articles''' isn't anywhere near enough. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
****It's clear to me that some of these articles are notable, and that a quick search would have turned that up. As such, I'm ''guessing'' that he didn't do a search on each of them. To me, that's the bare minimum one should do before coming to AfD. '''The issue isn't if the articles ''as written'' are meet notability guidelines'''. The issue is if they ''can'' meet notability guidelines. '''reading the articles''' isn't anywhere near enough. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*****Many of these articles were taged as lacking notabliy for awhile before this nomination. Not a single one of the articles contained a reliably sourced claim of notability at the time of my nomination. How long should they remained taged before we clean them out? Even after all this discussion, I'm not convinced that a single one of these articles are notable. Remember, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" None of these episodes even come close to meeting this threashold, even the Emmy-winning ones. Infomation from the few episode articles mentioned above that contain anything other than overlong plot summary can be merged to the main KotH article, and then deleted. &#10154;[[User_talk:HiDrNick|<span style="color:#CC3300">Hi</span><span style="color:#0088FF"><b>DrNick</b></span>]]! 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*****Many of these articles were taged as lacking notabliy for awhile before this nomination. Not a single one of the articles contained a reliably sourced claim of notability at the time of my nomination. How long should they remained taged before we clean them out? Even after all this discussion, I'm not convinced that a single one of these articles are notable. Remember, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" None of these episodes even come close to meeting this threashold, even the Emmy-winning ones. Infomation from the few episode articles mentioned above that contain anything other than overlong plot summary can be merged to the main KotH article, and then deleted. &#10154;[[User_talk:HiDrNick|<span style="color:#CC3300">Hi</span><span style="color:#0088FF"><b>DrNick</b></span>]]! 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*******I had worked on showing notability for a few that were tagged. For one example see [[Won't You Pimai Neighbor?]]. I'm sorry the sources I used were not up to your standards. I didn't do so for all because I'm not sure all of them are sufficiently notable. I was on the talk page for a less notable ep so you could've told me there that the sources were not of sufficient quality or reliability. Then I could've agreed or done more research.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] ([[User talk:T. Anthony|talk]]) 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
******Not a single one? Try the Pilot: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=&q=%22king+of+the+hill%22+pilot&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1997&as_hdate=1997&lnav=d3&ldrange=1990,1996&hdrange=1998,2007 [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])
******Not a single one? Try the Pilot: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=&q=%22king+of+the+hill%22+pilot&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1997&as_hdate=1997&lnav=d3&ldrange=1990,1996&hdrange=1998,2007 [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])
*******Schmucky: A Google search will find any of these titles. Yes they exist. What is your point? / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*******Schmucky: A Google search will find any of these titles. Yes they exist. What is your point? / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 161: Line 170:
*****#You can tell, and what's more you believe they all are.
*****#You can tell, and what's more you believe they all are.
*****Reconciling these statements, you seem to be saying you are the only editor who can read all these articles, and the rest of us should bow to your opinion. Thank you for presenting to us your unique and valuable insights. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*****Reconciling these statements, you seem to be saying you are the only editor who can read all these articles, and the rest of us should bow to your opinion. Thank you for presenting to us your unique and valuable insights. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
**(unindent) My result is an archived Google news search limited to 1997 that shows several pages of clear and obvious press sources specifically about the Pilot episode. Particularly, look at the results in paid archive banks. These articles are about the anticipation leadup to the show and critical reception afterwards. We aren't talking about TV Guide listings with that search. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])
***Then why aren't they referenced in the article! [[Pilot (King of the Hill)]] has only two refereces to IMDB. This article was tagged for lacking notability back in June, and you yourself reverted the taging while making no effort to improve the article. How long should we just leave these plot summaries just lying around? &#10154;[[User_talk:HiDrNick|<span style="color:#CC3300">Hi</span><span style="color:#0088FF"><b>DrNick</b></span>]]! 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Why not? Because nobody has gotten around to it. This is a wiki, there are no deadlines. That's a pretty core concept to how the project functions.
::::How long? Until it brings harm to the project. These are stubs, not completely written articles (as if anything here is ever complete). Stubs obviously fail all sorts of best practices and guidelines. When people decide to spend more time on them they will be more than they are now. We don't delete stubs. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])
*****Point taken about eventualism; I got carried away, and am straying from the main point here. The fact that there are many articles about and reviews of the pilot doesn't nessessarly mean that it's editorialy wise to have an article about it. First off, many of those sources are about the series itself, and do not establish notability for the pilot episode. Many of those sources and additions would be great for the main article. Merging the relavant and useful infomation from the episode articles into the main article and the LoE article would improve the two articles greatly, making two decent articles instead of dozens of poor ones. Even if the pilot episode itself is notable (''if''; I still don't think it is), there are dozens of other articles listed here that are very clearly not. &#10154;[[User_talk:HiDrNick|<span style="color:#CC3300">Hi</span><span style="color:#0088FF"><b>DrNick</b></span>]]! 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::*Edgarde: Wow, that was [[WP:Civil | rude]]. OK, I'm saying that a trivial search shows that some of the these articles have both reliable secondary sources and clear notability (awards, etc.). I'm further saying that it seems likely that the nom didn't perform these trivial searches on each of these episodes otherwise he likely would have found them. I'm also saying that doing this is, per AfD directions, part of what should be done before you nominate something for deletion. That the article didn't assert notability is a reason for [[WP:SOFIXIT | cleanup]] not AfD.
:::::::Finally, I'm saying that as some of these do have notability and the nom didn't successfully distinguish the notable from the unnotable the whole thing should be kept because there is no sound reason to believe that any particular one is non-notable. It is unreasonable to expect that anyone could find sources for so many things at once. That a fair number have been sourced implies to me that many of the rest could to. If you'd like to toss around further insults, please go to my talk page. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::::* HiDrNick: To answer your question, that they were tagged for a while isn't enough, per policy, to bring them here. A valid reason to bring something here is: "'''Subject''' fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" not "'''Article''' fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" If you checked around for notability of each of these articles and found nothing, then you did your job. I was questioning if that actually had happened. If so, great. Given that you don't think the things found are sufficent for notability (which I think is factually false as there are clearly non-trivial, independent, secondary sources for some of these) then even if you had searched you likely would have reached the same conculsion. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete all except main article''' It is completely absurd to have Encyclopedia articles about individual episodes of a soap. [[User:NBeale|NBeale]] ([[User talk:NBeale|talk]]) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:You mean a sitcom. This series is not a soap. It is not continuing, it is not a melodrama in the way a soap is, etc.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] ([[User talk:T. Anthony|talk]]) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' King of the Hill is a long-running and prominent television series, probably important enough to have individual episode articles, like [[The Simpsons]]. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanGerbil10]]<small>[[User_talk:RyanGerbil10|(Говорить!)]]</small> 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' appropriate content ''if reliably sourced'' to a list of episodes articles, and redirect all articles to the appropriate list. Trivia/"popular culture" sections should be left out entirely. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' There is value in having a complete set. It does not make sense to me to keep some episode articles but not others from the same series depending on arcane wikipedian dogma. [[User:Catchpole|Catchpole]] ([[User talk:Catchpole|talk]]) 08:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 08:25, 1 February 2022

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. it's impossible to form consensus in such a mass AFD as this, discussing merging in wikiproject talk. Also I'm not removing all these AFD tags, as it's so many articles and I have no time for this, let someone else do it. Secret account 21:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Propane People

[edit]

Contested prod. These are all articles for individual episodes of the television series King of the Hill. They consist of overlong plot summaries, infoboxes, and quote sections. As of the time of this nomination, only one of these sixty articles contains a reference to a reliable source, and that's only to source a claim about television ratings. These are not encyclopedia articles, and have practically no hope of ever becoming so.

I made a similar nomination last week with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas. Consensus in that discussion was to delete all of the articles nominated, and many of the arguments presented there will cross-apply here. Most importantly, it is clear that notability is not inherited: Time Magazine is notable, but last week's issue of TIME is not.

When proding these articles, I inadvertently used the edit summary "cleanup using AWB". The prods were removed on the procedural grounds of that not being a very good edit summary to use when proding an article (indeed it isn't). Still, supporters of WP:EPISODE may desire the content of the articles merged and redirected to List of King of the Hill episodes. There is no content to merge, as the episode list already contains brief plot summaries appropriate to a list. Redirecting is needless, as not a single one of these article titles make a reasonable search term. Therefore, I ask that we delete all of these articles. ➪HiDrNick! 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am happy to rule out the merge option as huge list articles seem awful. As for the detailed articles - you've checked all 60 articles carefully, searched for sources and know this highly-rated show well enough to be absolutely sure that the articles can't be improved any more? You are welcome to your opinion but I still think it is absurd as these episodes have great notability by virtue of their large ratings and sales. Still Keep Colonel Warden (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

option.

  • Keep most, if not all - A number of them do have unique trivia, runtime, and guest-actor information. It wouldn't be practical to list all this information on the episode list page. Keeping these in separate articles is useful rather than a single one, if for no other reason than to make them all more legible. Jkatzen (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources, in this type of instance, isn't a deletion criteria. The verifiability policy is clear sourcing is strict about "material likely to be challenged." The air date, title, credits, and simple plot summary are not material likely to be challenged and they form the basis for a perfect stub. Of particular consideration here are things like the pilot episode, which set up the characters and setting. This isn't at all like Ren & Stimpy. R&S is a fine show, but KotH is the second longest running animated sitcom in TV history, having a few dozen episodes with articles, out of 250 aired episodes sounds like some editorial discretion about which episodes need articles has already occurred.
Another issue is that this is occurring in the backdrop of reformulating the tv episode guideline to something that actually has consensus and an Arbcom case where this kind of mass nomination is under review. Not only shouldn't they be deleted, but this is the wrong time to ask for their deletion under the quoted criteria, because the quoted criteria doesn't reflect the community. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Articles that do not meet the notability guideline or show potential to meet it are candidates for deletion. Episodes generally do not have potential, so leaving them as stubs indefinitely does not help. TTN (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So says you. That opinion doesn't have community consensus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
As an extension of WP:N, it cannot do anything more than apply the specifics of it to television episodes. When N is undergoing a discussion, you'll have a point. TTN (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you'll have a point when you bother to respond to the RfCs and ArbCom case about this exact issue. You're a named party. Your absolute silence on the matter says everything it needs to about your contempt for the community and it's processes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
My participation is irrelevant to this AfD, so please stay on topic. TTN (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You used WP:N as a rationale. There is 500kb of discussion on how to apply WP:N to television episodes. Your opinion, which you keep replying with to every keep rationale as if it was policy, is not meeting with community consensus in those discussions. Your lack of participation in those discussions is directly relevant to this AfD because the statements you are making on this AfD are clinging to interpretations of those discussions that the community doesn't believe. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
And without changing WP:N, it will be impossible to change it that drastically. Last time I checked, they were just working on making the process smoother and more user friendly rather than changing the definition of notability anyways. When the guidelines actually state that episodes containing only plot summaries are good, then the community consensus won't be going along with my interpretations. TTN (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's your opinion of the meaning of notability. There is plenty of opinion otherwise. You should be participating and discussing this. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Editorial judgment? Have you read any of the nominated articles? Each one contains the same unsourced plot summaries and trivia. There is no rhyme or reason here as to why one episode has an article and another one doesn't. Not a single one of these articles makes so much as an independent claim to notability Can you demonstrate that any one of these episodes received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? ➪HiDrNick! 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, "Dr Nick," it's clear you're not telling the truth here when you say "not a single one of these articles makes so much as an independent claim to notability". About a dozen of them list, verifiably, significant award nominations or wins. It would have taken you about a minute and a half to check the awards out at any number of tv/video/animation sites, but you didn't bother to. And now you come back here and say things that obviously aren't true, and show no acquaintaince with the contents of the articles. You're just riding the wave of one side in an edit war and expecting that nobody will take the time to check out dozens of article. Can you demonstrate that you aren't lying here, and that you didn't act in bad faith? VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pilot episode has dozens of other sources because every TV critic in the US watched it. Several episodes have emmy nominations, those should be easy to find coverage on. The episode you named the AfD after has at least one cite on Google News. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
And yes, if 50 episodes have articles out of a few hundred, then someone made a judgment to write about that episode. Did you use any editorial judgment in nominating them? It appears you just loaded the entire category into AWB and put a PROD notice on every one in about 7 minutes.
  • Redirect all to LoE because of poor timing (WP:EPISODE, RfAr); otherwise reluctant delete because there was no tagging, and I don't know the show and can't check if real-world sources exist (e.g. audio commentaries). – sgeureka t•c 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plenty of audio commentaries, booklets, guides and secondary materials exist to source from. That's why these are perfectly valid stubs. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
In this case, I strike my recommendation, but I'd reconsider a redirection if no progress for improvement is made. As far as I checked, all articles are really poor and don't cover anything that the LoE doesn't already cover. – sgeureka t•c 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close with no prejudice for reopening pending the outcome of the arbitration above. It seems like there's a lot of WP:POINTy stuff going on above and, as has been noted, Wiki is in the process of trying to come to a consensus on the issue of the notability of television episodes. Redfarmer (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or at least keep the ones that won awards. If Emmy-nominated episodes of Family Guy, like North by North Quahog, are kept I don't see why the one Emmy-winning episode of this show must be deleted. Granted "Family Guy" DVDs sell better and they have more Internet presence, but still winning a major award is considered to meet notability elsewhere.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too soon to decide: change all 60 to tag with an empty "Template:KingHill_notability" (or such) to be filled with future AfD to easily activate future discussion about removing non-notable episodes. Future notability might depend on major events in an episode for each character's long-term status. As for Time magazine, issues would be notable such as "Person of the Century" (or decade), invasion of Iraq, and such. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect non-notable episodes, presumably all, per WP:EPISODE. This can be easily undone if consensus changes, but at this time such a change is merely a gleam in the eye of some episode stub defender. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now and develop only the following episodes, for which plausible notability cases can be made:
      • Won't You Pimai Neighbor? – see Reception section. It's not much and could easily be merged into the main King of the Hill article if it fails to thrive on its own. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My Own Private Rodeo – nominated for an award from GLAAD, apparently didn't win. This is probably not another Homer's Phobia, but we could give it the benefit of the doubt. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And They Call It Bobby Love – this episode won the show's only Emmy award. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you add Bobby Goes Nuts, which did get critical coverage and an award-win, to those three that might be enough kept for me. Although I might add the pilot as well. At the same time I don't really see why more couldn't be kept.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see anything worth keeping in either of those. I noticed that Annie award for Bobby Goes Nuts, but it's for a voiceover rather than the episode itself, so that would add to the actor's page more than this article; and besides, it's an Annie award so who cares? I don't think IGN counts as notable "critical coverage", and I'm certain TV.com's "Top Episodes" for King of the Hill does not. I don't know if pilot episodes are considered automatically notable yet, but that's the only thing Pilot (King of the Hill) has going for it. Redirect both as non-notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC) [Note: italicized notable above added 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC) for clarity.][reply]
            • It was an Emmy, not an Annie. Although an Annie-win I would personally place as more significant than a GLAAD nomination. And even if IGN doesn't count the journalist named has his own Wikipedia article. I think you're being way too strict. Keeping only five is a fairly bare minimum.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're right, it's an Emmy, for a voice actor; someone should add that to her article. As far as I can tell, a mention in IGN[1] is like a listing in TV guide, not ipso facto notable for a DVD release of a TV show, and the reviewer given this job doesn't transfer his notability to the episode unless that reviewer is Noam Chomsky or something. My Own Private Rodeo' GLAAD nom has the advantage of demonstrating interest outside of TV for TV's sake, which gets "real world" points. Ditto the Buddhism Film Fest inclusion for Won't You Pimai Neighbor?. I don't think there should be an arbitrary minimum number of episode articles (other than zero), and the three I list I consider plausibly notable, not clearly worth standalone articles, so if anything I am being lenient here. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Although I sort of see what you're saying TV is going to be notable with TV stuff. It's almost like penalizing an article on a book because it hasn't been mentioned in the movies or by DJs.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what you're saying, but it would still count as a source independent of itself that classes it as notable or meritorious. That plus the episode winning an Annie for "Outstanding Writing in Animated Television"[2] and the voice acting Emmy seems to make it sufficient to me. Standards vary though.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We disagree on standards, and that doesn't make me right. However, all the quality information contained in these 3 or 4 articles could go into a concisely written (guessing at title here) Notable episodes section of the KotH article, which would improve that article considerably, perhaps giving it sufficient interesting material for a future FA nomination. (I would offer to perform this merge if I didn't expect it to be reverted by angry episode enthusiasts.) Evidence of WP:NOTE alone for an episode does not mean a good standalone article can be made, only that there is sufficient possibility to justfy the attempt. Honestly, I lean toward Redirect all (per Guest9999 below), but for the articles I've listed, I'm willing to let WP:Eventualism have its day in court. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Listing all of these accomplishes nothing except people being pissed off about it. Mike H. Fierce! 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Karanacs (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding WP:V, some of this information appears to be from DVD commentary or something similar. If this is the case, these sources are not cited in any of the articles, unfortunately. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I think there is enough with these articles to keep. Thanks Lummie (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SchmuckyTheCat's arguments and replies to comments.--Alf melmac 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vast majority of the articles are completely unsourced and consist only of a plot summary. Wikipedia articles should not simply be plot summaries. Other sections included in several of the articles are "Trivia" and "Cultural References", this is almost all unsourced, unencyclopaedic original research and synthesis - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. In the very few articles that sources are given they are almost always not reliable (such as IMDB or TV.com) or not independent (such as DVD commentries or comments from the creators of the series). The articles therefore show no evidence that the episodes meet the standards of notability - having recieved significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - required for inclusion. WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", it is unlikely such sourcing could be found for the vast majority - and prehaps all - of these episodes/articles. It might be appropriate to merge some information into the main King of the Hill article such as the awards won by And They Call It Bobby Love and Bobby Goes Nuts (if reliable sources that verify the information can be found) but even these accolades are unlikely to have given rise to the significant coverage required to confer notability to the individual episodes themselves. Guest9999 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not necessarily advocating this, but what would you feel about breaking List of King of the Hill episodes into 12 "list of X season episodes" and then making the episode articles into redirects? This would allow for more information on notable episodes than the current single-list allows, but avoid the temptation of making any old episode an article. Granted I'm uncomfortable with this idea as it seems unfair to this show, but I thought I'd float it anyway.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This might be a good idea, especially if it allows adding guest cast and other episode-specific production details (WP:V permitting). Plot summaries should be as concise as possible (the current 1-2 sentence summaries are ideal) because they pose a genuine risk of WP:COPYVIO problems, but after 200 episodes I can imagine crowding being an issue. The only disadvantage is navigation, since having it all on one page makes searching easier; just breaking the list into "Seasons 1-5" and "Seasons 6-10" might be a good compromise.
        If by "fairness to the show" you mean number of episode articles versus other shows, give it some time for other shows to be addressed. My guess is that shows whose episode articles include FA and GA articles will be sorted out last. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, close immediately due to nominator misconduct. Despite what the nominator claims, quite a few of these articles reliably source assertions of notability -- Bobby Goes Nuts won one of the two Emmy Awards it was nominated for, And They Call It Bobby Love won an Emmy, two of the other listed episodes were nominated for Writers Guild of America Awards, and about a dozen others were nominated (easily verifiably) for nontrivial TV, media, or animation industry awards. The nominator either hasn't read the articles involved or has chosen to lie about thier contents. This sort of indiscriminate assault on Wikipedia content has nothing to do with policy or guidelines -- it's just creepy gameplaying. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you're new around here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Seeing as how this is a wiki, articles here undergo constant change, even when they're the subject of deletion discussions. At the time that I nominated the articles, only one article contained a reference to a reliable source. IMDB and TV.com are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. Most of these articles have been tagged as lacking notability for over a month. Since this discussion was started, several users have added references to actual real live reliable sources to the articles; this is great! Hooray for sources! Do two sources added to an article demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Well, of course not, but you have to start somewhere.
      I do hope that you'll either strike some of your above comments or provide some diffs so substantiate them, or risk appearing hysterical to any rational people participating in this discussion: I have not lied about anything. ➪HiDrNick! 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the primary reason that it's difficult, if not impossible to consider the individual merits of each article when there's several dozen of them. Secondary reason is that as an individual episode of a nationally broad-cast, critically acclaimed, long-running television show, I doubt that it would be difficult, let alone impossible to construct reasonable articles on each episode. To delete these articles would require a significant shift in attitude on the part of many Wikipedia editors, one that I don't see present. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as some of these episode do seem to have a claim to notability. Also mass nominations are seldom a good idea, especially when pointy. RMHED (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you actually claim that in making this nomination I am intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? I assure you that any disruption that may have occurred is accidental: having just put though a perfectly successful mass nomination of unnotable episode articles a week ago, I honestly was not expecting such a markedly different reaction here. I see little difference between the two sets of articles. Perhaps it's because this is a more popular television program, or because it is still aired? Maybe I just got a different crowd of AfDers this things around, or perhaps I attracted the attention of the ultra-inclusionists with the last successful nom? I honestly have no idea. ➪HiDrNick! 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Most, if not all, are notable, and if they weren't at the time of nomination, they are now. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to List of King of the Hill episodes. King of the Hill gets little media attention, which mean no reviews so no content other than plot summary, which means that notability is questionable. Many of the articles do not have talk pages, which indicates little activity, as does the lack of a King of the Hill task force. Not a single article is GA or FA so editors have not demonstrated that they can clean up these pages. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an individual article for each season, and merge each episode into its relevant season article. For example King of the Hill (season 6). 250 episodes is far too many for a single list. Since each season is/will be sold as a DVD, a season could be thought of as similar to a film. Reviews of each season are also easier to find, for example these [8] [9] [10] reviews of season 6. Bláthnaid 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not generally opposed to this idea . . . but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work -- why not leave it as-is for now? Jkatzen (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in some reasonable way. Possible by season, as it is too long for a single article. This needn't have come here. Excess tends to produce a disproportionate reaction. this is excess, and if we had avoided it we wouldn't have provoked people into excessive deletion. for that matter, if the anti-article group had kept to patiently merging articles like this, while preserving content, 99% of us would have applauded them, DGG (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to note that the above comment is extraordinarily wise. Would that the music folks could do the same with albums and discographies! Chubbles (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep primarily for procedural reasons. Too many articles to figure out what is notable and what isn't. Though I strongly suspect nearly every KotH episode can be shown to be notable. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, I would like to hear if the nominator actually searched for information on each of these. Deletions should only be proposed when you have put in some effort to see if the article has notability, not just because you suspect it isn't notable. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And finally, I want to support my keep by my arguments made below. Some articles in the group have been shown to be notable. Others may be, but asking for the deletion of such a large group makes it hard to figure out which is which in any reasonable time frame. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why people want 40 separate AFDs. If you cannot be bothered to read the nominated articles, why not leave the voting to people who will? / edg ☺ ☭ 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's clear to me that some of these articles are notable, and that a quick search would have turned that up. As such, I'm guessing that he didn't do a search on each of them. To me, that's the bare minimum one should do before coming to AfD. The issue isn't if the articles as written are meet notability guidelines. The issue is if they can meet notability guidelines. reading the articles isn't anywhere near enough. Hobit (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many of these articles were taged as lacking notabliy for awhile before this nomination. Not a single one of the articles contained a reliably sourced claim of notability at the time of my nomination. How long should they remained taged before we clean them out? Even after all this discussion, I'm not convinced that a single one of these articles are notable. Remember, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" None of these episodes even come close to meeting this threashold, even the Emmy-winning ones. Infomation from the few episode articles mentioned above that contain anything other than overlong plot summary can be merged to the main KotH article, and then deleted. ➪HiDrNick! 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hobit: Your assertions are that:
            1. No one can tell with this many articles if any are notable.
            2. You can tell, and what's more you believe they all are.
          • Reconciling these statements, you seem to be saying you are the only editor who can read all these articles, and the rest of us should bow to your opinion. Thank you for presenting to us your unique and valuable insights. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (unindent) My result is an archived Google news search limited to 1997 that shows several pages of clear and obvious press sources specifically about the Pilot episode. Particularly, look at the results in paid archive banks. These articles are about the anticipation leadup to the show and critical reception afterwards. We aren't talking about TV Guide listings with that search. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
      • Then why aren't they referenced in the article! Pilot (King of the Hill) has only two refereces to IMDB. This article was tagged for lacking notability back in June, and you yourself reverted the taging while making no effort to improve the article. How long should we just leave these plot summaries just lying around? ➪HiDrNick! 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Because nobody has gotten around to it. This is a wiki, there are no deadlines. That's a pretty core concept to how the project functions.
How long? Until it brings harm to the project. These are stubs, not completely written articles (as if anything here is ever complete). Stubs obviously fail all sorts of best practices and guidelines. When people decide to spend more time on them they will be more than they are now. We don't delete stubs. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
          • Point taken about eventualism; I got carried away, and am straying from the main point here. The fact that there are many articles about and reviews of the pilot doesn't nessessarly mean that it's editorialy wise to have an article about it. First off, many of those sources are about the series itself, and do not establish notability for the pilot episode. Many of those sources and additions would be great for the main article. Merging the relavant and useful infomation from the episode articles into the main article and the LoE article would improve the two articles greatly, making two decent articles instead of dozens of poor ones. Even if the pilot episode itself is notable (if; I still don't think it is), there are dozens of other articles listed here that are very clearly not. ➪HiDrNick! 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edgarde: Wow, that was rude. OK, I'm saying that a trivial search shows that some of the these articles have both reliable secondary sources and clear notability (awards, etc.). I'm further saying that it seems likely that the nom didn't perform these trivial searches on each of these episodes otherwise he likely would have found them. I'm also saying that doing this is, per AfD directions, part of what should be done before you nominate something for deletion. That the article didn't assert notability is a reason for cleanup not AfD.
Finally, I'm saying that as some of these do have notability and the nom didn't successfully distinguish the notable from the unnotable the whole thing should be kept because there is no sound reason to believe that any particular one is non-notable. It is unreasonable to expect that anyone could find sources for so many things at once. That a fair number have been sourced implies to me that many of the rest could to. If you'd like to toss around further insults, please go to my talk page. Hobit (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • HiDrNick: To answer your question, that they were tagged for a while isn't enough, per policy, to bring them here. A valid reason to bring something here is: "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" not "Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" If you checked around for notability of each of these articles and found nothing, then you did your job. I was questioning if that actually had happened. If so, great. Given that you don't think the things found are sufficent for notability (which I think is factually false as there are clearly non-trivial, independent, secondary sources for some of these) then even if you had searched you likely would have reached the same conculsion. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a sitcom. This series is not a soap. It is not continuing, it is not a melodrama in the way a soap is, etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/24_Hour_Propane_People&oldid=1069238669"