Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last One (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)

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 merge to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. NW (Talk) 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last One (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)

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

This episode doesn't establish notability. The plot is adequately covered within the episode list and there is little chance for actual expansion. TTN (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Each episode deserves it's own Wikipedia page. There is much more information on the specific episode article, than on the episode list. warrior 4321 18:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PLOT. There is little chance that an eleven minute cartoon is going to have enough development and reception information to require an entire article. The plot information cannot hold an article and it is way too bulky anyway. One paragraph is enough to cover it adequately. TTN (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is incredibly controversial, check the WP:PLOT talk page.[1] Just recently there was an even number of editors who wanted to delete this section as there were who wanted to keep it. Ikip (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:PLOT is not a policy as it lacks consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content in entirely in-universe and makes no establishment of notability. No 3rd-party sources. Episode is adequately covered in list article. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. A good comprimise that would satisfy everyone. Is there a list of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes? If so merge there.Ikip (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Talk:Aqua Teen Hunger Force page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
There is, and it's already there. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That episode had more people watching it than most bestselling novels have readers. That makes it notable. And if you don't like it, then you won't ever find the article, it only here if you go looking for it. It isn't about the suggested guidelines, they just an excuse for people to destroy what they personally don't like. TTN has previously nominated the pilot episode of M.A.S.H. and dozens of other episodes from that series for deletion also. You don't like character or episode articles, and want to wipe them all out. If there is nothing at all gained by destroying, then leave it be. Dream Focus 19:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a crime to mark things for deletion, and I personally think you are overreacting with comments like that. You need to settle down, and not turn AFD comments into attacks on the nominator. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims that there is little chance for expansion and yet, in just a minute I was able to find and cite a review. Reception-wise, it is described as the funniest show on television and so it clearly merits good coverage here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a DVD review that doesn't even go into detail about the single episodes. How exactly does being funny mean that we need three paragraphs on the plot of something that is only eleven minutes or so long? TTN (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does go into detail, discussing the reappearance of the Mooninites, for example. What we don't need is this nomination, as it seems that you are abusing the AFD process by nominating this article when there was no consensus for your edit to it. The correct action in such cases is to start discussion on the article's talk page, not to bring it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't detail. That's an overview. You need some sort of opinionated comment for it to count towards the episode. Warrior is very likely the only person available to actually discuss anything and his viewpoint is quite obvious. Instead of a pointless back and forth discussion, AfD is the best place to take care of this. TTN (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RFC for the correct way of attracting additional editors to a deadlocked discussion. AFD is a not a general purpose article discussion and dispute resolution service. AFD is overloaded and drive-by nominations which have not passed WP:BEFORE should be speedily closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not going to open an RfC for every single disputed redirect. AfD is perfectly fine for something like this. TTN (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In general, individual episodes can be valid spinout articles. Redirecting to a list of episodes presents a Catch-22: adding enough material to a list of episodes will be deleted for putting too much emphasis on that article. No gradual accretion of material can exist in that way. Episode articles with just a plot summary usually serve as valid stubs for gradually adding content. In this case, the plot summary is a mishmash of poorly written material. Spinout articles deserve a better attempt than this one has gotten and it would be no loss if this was deleted without prejudice to a future attempt. Colonel Warden's finding of an external source is a valid first step to rescuing this, thus the weak keep. Miami33139 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the original version of this article if you're taking development time into account. I believe the original articles had at least a good year and a half to develop before they were removed. This one is just one of the many recreations. TTN (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds then that this has interest. It may develop better if every new attempt didn't have to start from scratch. Miami33139 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about a more eventful series, I would probably agree that interest is a good thing. But this series is just the definition of randomness. I really doubt that anyone is going to provide significant production or reception details on single episode of it. The series itself would really be the only target for such information. If you're not familiar with it, I believe adultswim.com has some videos to show what I mean. TTN (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protected redirect We have good coverage of this at the LOE, so the individual entry is a magnet for fancruft and contains no independent, real-world information that establishes notability and prevents this from falling under WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT is not a stable policy, and cannot currently be used as justification. warrior 4321 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Claim that there is no potential for expansion appears invalid, and there are indications of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect the redirect as this is entirely in-universe. JBsupreme (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not entirely in-universe as there's lots of references to the real world - air dates, writers, continuity, episode numbers and so forth. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm, respectfully I must disagree with you on that. JBsupreme (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote and assertions which contradict the facts are obviously unacceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOLWUT. JBsupreme (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? This is not a ballot vote, please justify a reason for your delete, or strike your vote out. warrior 4321 11:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it isn't a ballot vote, why should it be struck? Anyways, it's up to the closing admin to decide if a vote is valid or not, not you. Quantpole (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Honest, we should not "say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument.". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the keep votes seem to be based on the premise that there should be an article for any episode of any TV show, if someone is willing to write one. To some extent, I think these should be tolerated for at least seven days before merging back to an article about the season, since it's a good opportunity for someone to sharpen their writing skills by writing about a subject that they enjoy. However, I see no encyclopedic value in someone taking notes while watching a TV show, or for having their own personal website about a TV series. The test still has to be WP:N, and I haven't seen any suggestion that "The Last One" has received some type of recognition in independent sources. I appreciate that Colonel W has at least tried to find a source, instead of relying on arguments like shows "deserve" their own articles, or that more people TV instead of reading books; still, it looks like little more than a one-sentence mention of what will be found on Volume 3 of ATHF. Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to justify a delete vote. My addition has provided a source. The List article which others prefer is inferior as it has zero sources for this episode. It is illogical to favour an article which is worse than this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles worse than this one, but that has nothing to do with whether I think the subject is worth its own article. Mandsford (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that the article on deletion is better sourced than the article that contains only a short episode plot, which will where this is redirected to. warrior 4321 23:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part I'm reading is "you fail" and "it is illogical". Seems to me that the source could be added to the other article. Mandsford (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not the level of coverage to justify this having its own article. Adequately covered in the list of episodes. Quantpole (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of ARS rescue tag, no sources have come to light. Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Primarily plot summary, no reason to expect that situation to change.—Kww(talk) 01:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT is not a policy as it is currently undergoing revision. warrior 4321 01:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT is most certainly policy. There is a small group of editors that believes they can ignore it. I suggest that you ignore them.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a little clarification here. While WP:NOTPLOT clearly is policy, nothing in that policy requires the deletion of articles which fail it. Instead, the appropriate response would appear to parallel that for part 1 of WP:DICDEF: "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible." Similarly, other (sub)policy provisions in WP:NOT call for the expansion, modification, or elimination of inappropriate content. WP:NOTPLOT also says that "A concise plot summary is sometimes appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work," yet many if not most plot summaries I've come across are bloated beyond reason and dominate their articles rather than shining light on cited critical commentary [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] are examples. This article appears far more easily correctible, and far less severe a WP:NOTPLOT violation than many other movie/tv articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I added "no reason to expect that situation to change." If this was something awaiting a pile of reviews (like a movie that was being released in days), then there's a reasonable expectation that the article will grow into an article that doesn't violate WP:NOT#PLOT. In this case, there's no reason to believe that a large body of criticism is going to appear in the future for a six-year-old episode. Most of the other articles you mention need a serious axe taken to them. The Kremlin Letter is clearly salvageable, and the others stand a decent chance. This doesn't.—Kww(talk) 02:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPLOT is not policy as there is no consensus for it, as established by a major RfC. The link is only maintained by a small number of hardline editors per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate episode list. Edward321 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford's excellent rationale about the article's notability. Also, WP:NOTPLOT is a current policy, whether some editors agree with it or not (just check the page header). Them From Space 00:54, 4 October 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.