Talk:Pilot (The Playboy Club)

Explanation, please
Could someone explain to me why this article exists? I see there are similar articles already existing in Wikipedia for other TV shows. But.....this show broadcast a total of three shows and was cancelled. A pilot episode article for a cancelled three-episode-only show? Just sayin'....... Lhb1239 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that there were only three episodes, if the episode is notable then there's no reason why there can't be an article. However, the article seems to be mostly a copy of The Playboy Club, covering aspects of the series as a whole, while it should concentrate only on the pilot. If the non-pilot content is stripped away I suspect that notability won't be demonstrated. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as I thought. This article shouldn't even exist. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. If the non-pilot content is removed and what remains demonstrates notability, then the article can remain. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't say, "If the non-pilot content is stripped away I suspect that notability won't be demonstrated."? It looks like your sig following that statement - did someone compromise your account...? The response was in the negative tense, therefore, it seems to me from what you wrote you don't think the article is notable, either (unless, of course, as I stated previously, someone was speaking for you through your account ;-)  Lhb1239 (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll argue that the information in the protest section is relevant to the pilot episode, as much of it presented preceded the premiere of the episode. Once more episode began airing, protests weren't nearly as vocal. I did, however, remove the writing section, as the plot wasn't exclusive to the episode. —DAP388 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The content in the article needs to be directly relevant to the episode. There seems to be a lot of content that is simply copied from the main series article, which isn't appropriate. Instead of duplicating content, if there is a need for that information here, " " should be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What I said doesn't mean that the article should not exist, which is what you concluded. Suspecting that notability will not be demonstrated is not the same as saying that the subject is not notable. You've completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't have the time at this point to go through the article to work out what should be pulled. Do you? --AussieLegend (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I concluded what I did based on what you said and what I already knew - not from what you said alone. You did, however, in the words you wrote, indicate you didn't think the article was going to be notable enough to have an article on its own - and that's the reality. The pilot episode hasn't won any awards, wasn't special all on its own, hasn't been noted as being anything overly exceptional, and didn't set a new standard for television programming. Any or all of those things would make it notable. As it is, the series was cancelled and the only thing that made it notable was the stir and protest it caused. Even so, that makes the series notable (and the idea of it notable) - but the pilot? Not notable froma Wikipedia notability standpoint. Not at all. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you always have to argue over trivialities? Yes, I suggested that it may not be notable, not that it isn't notable. There's a difference. Since the article has around 60 citations the immediate implication is that it must be notable. However, as I earlier stated, in a slightly different way, once the general series related/non-episode specific content is removed it may well be that it is not notable. On the other hand, there may be enough to d3emonstrate notability. At this point it's not possible to credibly make a sweeping statement such as it's "Not notable froma Wikipedia notability standpoint. Not at all." --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's no policy against discussing "trivialities" on article talk pages in Wikipedia, then I will take your above question as another demonstration of you commenting on editors rather than edits (in other words, a personal attack). Please keep your comments on topic. As to your final comment: yes, it is possible because it's my opinion.  Personal opinion doesn't have to be acceptible to all in order to be voiced.  Lhb1239 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You really do need to read WP:NPA with a view to understanding it better. Arguing over trivialities is unproductive. Time would be better spent improving the article, either by editing out the non-episode specific content so as to determine the subject's notability, or lack thereof. As of now, it's not really possible to determine that one way or another, so your opinion really has no effect. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No I don't. I understand it just fine.  Lhb1239 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now been through the article and removed all the non-episode specific content. Despite my earlier concerns, the episode does seem to meet the notability requirements. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pilot (The Playboy Club). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127150843/http://stilltalkintv.com/2011/09/emmy-forgiven-broke-sells-playboy-disappoints/ to http://stilltalkintv.com/2011/09/emmy-forgiven-broke-sells-playboy-disappoints

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)