Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frasier's Curse

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 to delete. Consensus is that AfD is not for merge discussions and that this content is appropriate on Wikipedia in some form. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frasier's Curse

WP:Nonnotable episode, nothing found on Google News/Books/Scholar about production or reception of this episode so that WP:NOT#PLOT can ever be satisfied. I usually prefer merging and/or redirecting, but as my contributions are currently getting wiki-hounded, I actually prefer article deletion over an unsuccessful merge proposal in this case. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comment below from 14:06, 17 January 2009. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best reference for notability I can find is this. Beyond that, bits like [1] aren't very helpful. Hard to say - lives very much on the edge of notability at this point, though for an overall very notable TV show like Frasier, individual articles are probably merited just to keep article size reasonable. Wily D 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frasier (season 6) or delete. I wouldn't normally add delete, but I recently ran into an administrator who saw a bunch of merges and a few keeps and said it was a snowball keep. True story. Mandsford (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now, at least. Frasier holds the record for most prime time Emmys, so we should discuss the plot of each episode in some detail. I realize that "real world" info may be hard to find, so I wouldn't prevent a merge to Frasier (Season 6). But that's a question of organization, and shouldn't require AFD. (And we certainly shouldn't delete an article because you can't get a merge to stick. That's just silly.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just as silly to boycott any merge attempts through wikihounding. If playing nice and collaboratively doesn't work for simple cleanup measures, then it's no surprise that more drastic actions are taken. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vindictiveness never solves anything. It'll just make things worse. I don't even know what you're reacting to. This article has only been edited three times, and the talk page is still a redlink. I see no evidence that anyone has contested a merge proposal. Zagalejo^^^ 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Compare the name of the initiators/participants of Talk:Frasier#Merger_of_all_Frazier_episodes_to_Frazier_seasons (they don't even spell the name of the show right) after Talk:List_of_The_Outer_Limits_episodes#Redirection_.28.22merger.22.29_of_The_Outer_Limits_episodes and Talk:Stargate_SG-1#Straw_poll:_Unmerge_the_stargate_episodes. I see a distinct pattern and don't see any good coming for my future cleanup work if I don't get any official backup through AfD right now (edit: I mean get confirmation that the articles shouldn't exist on their own as they are). – sgeureka ^t•c 22:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, they haven't done anything yet... But let me ask you this: even if they do revert your edits, is that really such a huge problem? There's no significant difference between keeping this info in an independent episode article and keeping it in a list article. As I said, it's just a difference of organization. You're stressing yourself out over nothing. Zagalejo^^^ 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I am actually trying to reduce stress by getting one objective answer here now instead of wasting time and patience in a WP:CHEESE-type discussion, or seeing my non-participation there interpreted as "see? you have no consensus for merging". I disagree that there is no significant difference between 264 non-compliant articles and 11 compliant articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        OK... so what is the real difference? The eleven list articles will contain almost everything that was in the 264 episode articles (apart from the quote sections, maybe). Zagalejo^^^
        For a start, the 11 articles can quite easily be improved to a Featured List, and the 264 article can never be improved to stand-alone-article standards set by to WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:MOSTV (and eventually the proposed WP:FICT) except if they are allowed to violate WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The stand-alone articles don't violate any policies. They are not purely plot summaries, since they contain info on the air date, writer, etc, and we needn't worry about WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:V, since most of the basic information can be sourced to the episode itself, or TV Guide. The rest of your links are just guidelines, all of which are controversial.
        
        You say that the season articles can be more easily improved to FL status, which is probably true. However, until there is an actual effort to make those lists featured, it just doesn't matter that much where we keep the info on episodes. (I'd also argue that an article can be perfectly useful without achieving featured status. A short, focused article is usually easier to digest than a long article with a broad scope.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Just to clarify: I wouldn't try to prevent you from merging the article into a list. I'm fine with a merge. I'm just trying to understand why you think the content must be deleted if the merge doesn't go through. Zagalejo^^^ 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The wording of WP:NOT#PLOT pretty much explains that having an "air date, writer, etc" is not sufficient (particularly as every episode article has an air date and a writer etc.) Currently, AfD is the only place to get an at least somewhat objective and binding ruling about fiction articles, and performing a merger effectively takes away this chance per the GFDL. As much as I generally prefer merging, I absolutely prefer to get one article deleted and then resume with merging the other ones (citing an AfD's precedent that the episodes shouldn't have stand-alone articles), than being prevented from performing a merger because of policy-defiant wikihounders. It's sad, yes, but I also have to see how to get cleanup work done. I hope this explanation helps. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I understand your reasoning a little better now. I'm still uncomfortable about using AFD for this purpose, because we shouldn't have to delete potentially mergeable content just to send a message to someone. But I think I've spent enough time in this discussion. I'll wait to see what others think. Thanks for your responses. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There was a huge debate about television edpisodes in 2005, when editors bulk deleted dozens of episodes. The consensus at the time was to keep these episodes.Wikipedia:Historic_debates#Television_Episodes This is still the consensus. That is why there are hundreds of television series listed on Category:Lists_of_television_series_episodes. I will study the history of the guideline WP:NOT#PLOT, if the history of most guidelines holds true, this section was added with a handful of editors (less than 10), with little discusion, and no strawpoll. In addition, and most important, WP:NOT#PLOT does not say that editors should delete plots, here is the full guideline:
        Plot summaries. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
        I encorage the nominator to work towards expanding these plot summaries, into a "larger coverage of a fictional work," because right now, nominator is in violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to...(list)" WP:PRESERVE trumps the mere three sentence guideline WP:NOT#PLOT. 19:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        There were a handful of attempts to change or remove NOT#PLOT in 2008, and PLOT always stayed. May I ask what I shall use to expand the article? There are no reliable sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination Using AFD to delete an article when a merge is unsuccesful is abuse of process. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anybody abusing the process, Mgm... I'm just saying that administrators need to follow the consensus, whatever it happens to be. These episode articles are alright for a week or two; they're good practice for people wanting to sharpen their writing skills by talking about a topic that they're comfortable with. Inevitably, things like that should be merged into a larger article and then the article title should become a redirect. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no abuse of process. This article fails two inclusion criteria, period. It's up to me if I propose it for a merger or take it to AfD, and I think the later option is better to get the job done (i.e. to remove a non-compliant article). If it's held against me that I started an unspecific merge discussion about 200 non-compliant articles that unspecifically included this article, then I will learn the lesson and will take these 200 articles straight to AFD the next time. I am sure arbcom will understand that other editors have put me in a position where I have no other option to get cleanup job done. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Having not been a part of any merge discussions for this episode, and having found this at AfD as my being a member of WikiProject Television, might this search offer anything toward notability? Or this? Or this? Or this? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No (neither production nor reception info), No ("Frasier's Curse" was neither nominated nor won an award), Maybe and Maybe (I can't find useful sources on the first page each, but I can't claim that you won't find something useful one the fifth, tenth or of fiftieth page - but that not my WP:BURDEN anymore anyway after my searches for Google News/Books/Scholar came up empty). – sgeureka ^t•c 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an aside, I would have been extremely impressed had anyone found the television show episode with search on Google Scholar. But I was surprised when I did come up with a couple things in Google Books:[2], [3], [4], [5]... but were only as trivial historical mentions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was aware of these book sources when I started this AfD. The first book is a transcript (i.e. as primary as you can get when notability requries secondary sources), and the other ones are just lists of episodes without plot summaries, and wikipedia already has List of Frasier episodes for that. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: Close nomination As per Mgm, nominator should not use AFD to delete an article when a merge is unsuccesful. This is an abuse of process, and against consensus. travb (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I said before, there was no unsuccessful merger, and it's perfectly legitimiate to nominate a nonnotable article that doesn't pass WP:NOT, for deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close nom. I suppose I have a couple of problems here. First, it seems clear that this article wasn't nominated due to problems with notability, but instead because of problems with consensus building in the proper placement of the text within the article. AfD is not the place to solve that problem, talkpages are the places to solve that problem. Squereka talks about not wanting to embark on a clean-up project without having AfD's backing on the non-notability of these individual articles. Well, AfD survival isn't the test of notability. Consensus here doesn't outweigh consensus on a talk page and a problem shouldn't be transferred in this way. On a side note, I can guarantee that SOME episodes/articles from Frasier seasons are certainly notable enough for their own article. Why do I bring this up? Because, if we are trying, as a group, to find a "clean" way to organize episodes, putting most in a list, with some having their own articles, isn't exactly a "solution." SMSpivey (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. If there was no unsuccessful merger, then this is still an abuse of process. Deletion policy is that other options should be tried before deletion. Even the episode guideline speficially says to avoid AfD unless the information is "completely unverifiable and original research". AfD is not a place to get consensus when you think you can't get it elsewhere; this is just forum shopping. And alleged "wikihounding is not a reason to bring a dispute here either; if you have specific complaints about specific users, bring it to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U or some other form of dispute resolution. DHowell (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So with that reasoning, no episode article that fails WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT can ever be brought to AfD (even though WP:DEL#REASON says that N and NOT can be reasons for an AFD), while no-one sees a problem with AfDing all other kinds of articles that fail WP:N and WP:NOT. I reject that notion. Instead of everyone !voting to speedy close this and claiming abuse of process, can someone show that this article passes WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT? That would be much more helpful to determine the future of this article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No merger necessary after my expansion of Frasier (season 6) with my own words. Can this AfD shift its focus now to the deletion of this nonnotable (WP:N), non-encyclopedic (WP:NOT) article? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only superficially paraphrased. Many whole phrases are still intact from the original article, e.g., "his divorce with Lilith and being left at the altar by Diane"; "not keen to go"; "unemployed, single and living with his father"; "a catastrophic job interview at another radio station on the same day"; "is very cross"; "walking outside the supermarket in shabby clothes pushing a shopping trolley". Zagalejo^^^ 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete handily. This article has zero reliable sourcing (and hasn't for over 6 months), and consists solely of production minutiae and plot. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The one thing Wikipedia does well is listings of television shows. If the merge failed, it's silly to flyspeck individual episodes and leave holes in the completeness of the particular project. I'd be open to reconsidering the merger, but I'm against deleting such articles piecemeal. THF (talk) 22:08, 17 January 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.