Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Rocky Start

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No support for deletion in this AFD, this should not prevent a decision on merging/redirecting being agreed by consensus on the talk page if individual notability cannot be established. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Rocky Start

[edit]
A Rocky Start (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate that this individual episode has any notability beyond the series. Attempts to deal with the various episode articles have been unsuccessful because of unsubstantiated and unsustainable claims of individual notability for every single episode. Otto4711 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Unless single episodes of all shows are to be deleted, the article is as at least as coherent as any other, and there are a few things in the article that indicate how it is different from other episodes.Vulture19 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of other articles has absolutely no bearing on the existence of this article, as each article on Wikipedia must meet our policies and guidelines on its own. Our policies and guidelines require that there be reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to meet our notability guideline. Do you know of any such sources which would justify the retention of this article? If so, please list them here. We are not required to delete every article for every individual television episode in order to delete this one. That is not how AFD works. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, writing episode articles without sources, and then gnashing one's teeth at AFD rather than helping to send the message that episode articles need sources just like every other article is a waste of time. If the result of this AFD is redirect then fine, redirect the article. But to !vote keep on an article that is bereft of reliable sources demonstrates that those in favor of keeping either don't know or don't care about our policies and guidelines and result in an overall weakening of the project. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 165,000 pages in Category:All articles lacking sources. Why the focus on episode articles? Why don't you find one of the articles lacking sources that you can find sources for and start improving them? It's not that we don't know or don't care about policies and guidelines, it's that we believe your hyperenforcement of these policies and guidelines hinders us "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Ignoring certain interpretations of policies and guidelines in such a case is policy; extreme rule enforcement is actually what results in a "weakening of the project". DHowell (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're suggesting that no articles can be brought to AFD unless all articles are brought to AFD? Point me to where it says that editors are somehow constrained from bringing articles that have no independent notability to AFD unless they bring all such articles to AFD. And excuse me, but this is not about me, and even if it were, even a cursory stroll through my edit history would show the hundreds of articles for which I have found sources and expanded accordingly. Let's focus on the nomination and not the nominator, shall we? Or by focusing on me are you acknowledging the lack of notability of this individual episode after all? Otto4711 (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable article or list of episodes. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. Of course, the decision may be against merging, as it apparently was. Myself, I'd tend to merge, but the people working with the articles should decide. Attempts to establish a policy that articles like this should be deleted have repeatedly failed to obtain consensus, and merge attempts tend to fail because content almost always gets removed to less than a base minimum. Trying to establish a policy for merging with retention of full content might have better success. This nomination is an attempt to KeepTryingVariousForumsUntilYouGetYourWay. It's just as bad as repeatedly nominating in the hope that by chance, onedecision will be for deletion. . I note there is very little plot discussion, & it seems to be cut off in the middle of a sentence; I think a good deal more should be added, but that's for the article talk p. too. There also are 3rd party references. DGG (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, thanks once again for your assumption of good faith regarding the reason that I put this up for nomination. Always so nice to be accused of skullduggery. BTW, exactly which of the listed sources discuss this particular episode (as opposed to discussing the series as a whole) in a significant fashion as required by WP:N? Or are you finally such an extreme inclusionist that actual policies and guidelines don't figure into your desire to keep anything and everything? Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the nom provide links to his asertion that "attempts to deal with the various episode articles have been unsuccessful because of unsubstantiated and unsustainable claims of individual notability for every single episode"? Links that show claims to have been "unsubstantiated and unsustainable"? And if that were the case, were these other articles kept for some other reason than being "unsubstantiated and unsustainable"? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones? Your assertion "attempts to deal with the various episode articles have been unsuccessful because of unsubstantiated and unsustainable claims of individual notability for every single episode" seems a rather broad WP:WAX brush with which to paint this one AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ask again: Can you provide any reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this particular episode as required by WP:N? This is a very simple question, which can be answered in three ways. Either "yes, here are the sources", "no, I have no sources" or dodging the question entirely, which amounts to admitting that you have no sources. Given your continued failure to offer sources and to divert attention away from it, I take it that your answer is number three. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you will not answer my reasonable question and immediately demand I answer a different one of yours, it is obvious who is "dodging" a question. Editors were working on the article. Without discussion, you deleted all their work and set a redirect. When these editors returned the article and continued to work toward its improvement, you immediately and without discussion sent it to AfD in violation of Policy. The ultimate improvement of Wikipedia is everyone's goal, and tossing articles to the ash heap AS THEY ARE BEING EDITED, acts as a disservice to editors trying to do just that. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:N, individual episodes must have reliable sources that establish their notability independent of the series. Per WP:EPISODE the progression is Series article, then season article if there is sourcing, then episode articles if and only if there are independent reliable sources that significantly cover the specific episodes. In the absence of such sources, notability is not established. There is no exception to WP:N based on the length of the series article, and unverifiable information should not be added to the series article either. Otto4711 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I proposed the article for deletion. You may want to, you know, read the AFD one more time. You do realize that "strong keep" doesn't actually mean anything, right? It's not like an admin is going to look at your comment and go, "well, he can offer no sources that support the notability of this individual episode, but Ikip feels real strong about it so let's ignore the lack of sources!" Otto4711 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment With respects toward your the concern for notability, wouldn't it have been prudent to have tagged the article for such and discussed its needs on its talk page? Your initial attention to the article was to set it as a redirect without discussion. When that was reverted, you sent it immediately to AfD. Since our goal here is to improve wikipedia, how about letting folks adress the untagged issues? If they do not satisfy your concerns, it can always be tossed back into the ash bin. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I redirect or nominate an article I always search for sources that might establish the notability of the subject. If no such sources appear to exist, then I redirect it or nominate it. Re this article, no sources that significantly cover this individual episode appear to exist. Is discussing the non-existence of sources on the talk page going to make such sources suddenly come into existence? Of course not. Now, the possibility certainly exists that I have somehow managed to overlook sources, I don't claim to be infallible. During the course of this AFD, those in favor of keeping the article are certainly free to locate such sources and bring them to the attention of the community. If such sources are located before the close of the AFD, then great, my bad. If not, then the article should be deleted. Should such sources become available in the future, there are processes for recreating the article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without any discussion on the talk page?? Without even a courtesy tag which would have given editors notice that you felt it did not meet guidelines? Without giving due consideration that would have allowed others to at least try (as they began to after your failed Redirect), rather than forcing a mad scramble? With respects, once the Redirect was overturned was removed by those editors involved in improving the article, your immediately tossing it undiscused into an AfD does not quite feel right... as if you did not want anyone to even try to bring it into line. And if an article is deleted, how might someone even know it existed, unless they knew beforehand? And why then force someone to figure out how to get something they never even knew once existed recreated if it could have simply have been corrected before it was tossed into the trashbin? Doesn't a tag for concerns and allowing it to then be addressed better serve the project? Even with there being no NO DEADLINE for this to be done? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful. Not helpful, and quite colorful. You still have not answered the cogent question. Deletion Policy (not guideline) indicates that unless an article meet the criteria for speedy deletion, discussions about possible improvements or concerns about an article be undertaken on the artice's talk page. Further, Policy (not guideline) indicates that in these discussions, alternatives to deletion be considered and discussed. Policy (not guideline) also indicates that an article that seems lacking be suitably tagged for guideline concerns to allow editors to address and discuss the issued before it being sent to deletion. You failed to follow these Policies in your wish to enforce an interpretation of guideline. Even if it is found that this article fails guideline, you did not follow the protocols set by Policy, and continue to pointedly ignore questions about your violation of policy. You made a decision to redirect and when this was overturned immediately made a decision to delete. All without discussion on an article that was actively in the process of being improved by others. There were involved editors with whom this could have been discussed per POLICY. Are you above policy? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I take it that you have heretofore unrevealed reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this individual episode? What are they? Either produce them or stop being such a process queen. Whether I did or didn't discuss this on the talk page, on the street corner outside my house or on Meet the Press, the point still stands that there are no reliable sources that significantly cover this individual episode.
  • So you acknowledge the lack of reliable sources and pin your faint hopes on the idea that maybe there are sources out there somewhere. See, that's not the standard for articles. "Significance" has nothing to do with my AFDs. Notability does. Unfortunately there are far too many editors like yourself who care nothing about improving the quality of the project and who want to keep everything, regardless of its lack of notability as supported by reliable sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your supposed episode-specific reference comes from a website that describes itself as an "online reference and community website for fans of British comedy", which hardly sounds like it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Otto4711 (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of episodes article, as per the usual custom. Jtrainor (talk) 01:56, 18 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Rocky_Start&oldid=1069613056"