Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acmegeddon


 * 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 Delete Nacon kantari  18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Acmegeddon
This article is just a plot summary of a tv show episode. This fails part of Wiki policy WP:NOT. See point 7 in the not an indiscriminate collection of information section which states:
 * Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic

This does not satisify this policy. Metros232 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Kappa 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, my understanding of "aspect of a larger topic" is that you can use a plot summary to say: this episode is important to pop culture/society/whatever...here is what happens in the episode...here is why what happens is important. This article is simply saying what happened, nothing of importance or cultural significance and, as such, doesn't fit as an "aspect of a larger topic". Metros232 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Loonatics Unleashed is a larger topic which benefits from not having individual episodes discussed in the main article. Kappa 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- plot summary only, no context or anything at all indicating significance. older ≠ wiser 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I find it hard to believe that Loonatics has enough of a fanbase for stuff like this to crop up. Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete Weak Delete. I did not originally notice that there was a page (WP:EPISODE) that laid down specific policies on this sort of thing.  Per a violation of that page, I have changed my vote accordingly.  As a postscript though, I'm not sure we should delete any and all articles that just need a bit of cleanup.  Is it not possible that, considering the page is only a few weeks old, someone could have cleaned up the article with the appropriate sources in the future? Green451 16:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I have never heard of this show, nor do I want to see it, but a precedent has already been set for articles on a TV show episodes.  Look at the articles List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes and List of House episodes, and you will see that these shows have articles for almost every episode of their series.  While this TV show certainly isn't as well known compared to my examples, as long as it recieves non-questionable third-party media coverage, then it mandates inclusion, in my humble opinion. Green451 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about House, but if you look at most any article on a Star Trek episode, it is more than simple plot summary. Plot summary alone does not make for an encyclopedia article. And seeing as how these are the only episodes with an article for the show and not a whole lot of activity in improving them, I don't see any reason to keep them. I mean, if you want to bring them all up the the level of quality of Star Trek episode articles, that'd be just great--but, good luck with that. older ≠ wiser 02:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, a precedent has not been set. The best indicator of whether Wikipedia should have articles on individual episodes of television series is whether those episodes have already, outside of Wikipedia, been documented in detail individually, independently of the show's creators/producers/promoters.  Episodes of series like Star Trek and Babylon 5 have been documented in detail, individually and independently.  That, not precedent, is the basis upon which we can justify having articles on the individual episodes.  Precedent, i.e. "If article X then article Y.", is a fundamentally flawed argument.  To make a good argument, cite sources, in this case sources where this episode of a television show has been individually documented in detail independently of its creators/producers/promoters. Uncle G 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep as an episode of a notable TV show, I'd say it's a keep by default. However, this article should be tagged for clean-up and other improvement.  Make it something more like the Avatar episodes.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way is this a "notable TV show"? Where are the books about it? Where are references to critical reception? older ≠ wiser 02:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was on KidsWB! and now the CW, and it involves derivations from long-established Looney Toons characters. Pretty much says notability for a television series to me.  How is it not notable?  Because some college professor hasn't taught a course on it yet?  Oh well.  I don't need that sort of thing.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is really something odd that I just discovered (and probably a nice little example of systematic bias) but the "Who shot J.R.?" episode of Dallas (TV series), the second-most watched television episode of all-time, doesn't have its own article. It has simply a paragraph along with about 5 other notable episodes in the Dallas article.  Metros232 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This topic has been coming up a lot lately. Notability guidelines for fiction require that articles be MORE than just a summary and that they MUST provide real world context.  Having articles for every single episode of every single tv show is a bit much, wouldn't you say?  I've suggested that in cases where a show has lots of such articles that they be merged into articles covering the show by season, which also helps to place them in context with the show as a whole at least. --The Way 05:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's funny that you would pair such a helpful suggestion with such a confrontational vote. Kappa 06:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I vote on a number of AfDs daily anymore, it's not very confrontational, just an administrative type function that average editors on the Wikipedia do. The suggestion was to merge it into a broader article that covers the season in which it appeared; if there's nothing to merge it into, I still think it should be deleted.  The article of an individual episode needs to be deleted regardless. --The Way 06:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe "brutal" is a more approriate term then. Kappa 07:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Having articles for every single episode of every single tv show is a bit much, wouldn't you say? No, I'd say that's exactly what I'd like. Ok, not every single TV show, since game shows, for example, would rarely qualify, or  news programs, and soaps would probably be a bit overwhelming, but for the most part, yes, I would like most TV shows to have an article.  Oh, sometimes all the episodes might well be described in one page, but the important thing is to have the information. FrozenPurpleCube 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. When the plot summary of a two-part animated cartoon episode is twice as long as the plot summary of War and Peace, there would appear to be something wrong with the article about the cartoon. --Metropolitan90 07:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment should probably be directed toward User:The Way's delete recommendation above. --Metropolitan90 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (No longer applicable, comment has been moved.) --Metropolitan90 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, however I already forgot to sign in, I can forgive myself for getting the location wrong. So I moved it.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is apparently a two-part episode of a cartoon TV show. We keep episode summaries as a matter of practice. Everyking 07:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no need for such long summaries when no other info is available. Everything we need to know is in Episodes of Loonatics Unleashed, Season 1, this article badly fails WP:NOT and doesn't seem to have a chance to be expanded with out-of-universe, notable, WP:V info. The show is notable, but this particular episode (or presumably anyt other one) isn't. Fram 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. None of the other episodes of this series have their own articles, I don't see why this one should.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Were this not a simple plot summary, but an article with a real-life subject, I would probably vote delete for the following reasons: Stinks of WP:OR; no sources; few wikilinks; no cats and a non-notable (WP:NN) subject. With it being an article about just one episode of a notable (as established by the fact that it has an article) TV series, I feel that it should definately be deleted - the text in it is really unneccesary, as all the inforamtion that most people need (and which should be on WP) is in the table.   M a rtinp23 15:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  WP:NOT, WP:EPISODE, and this is solely a plot summary. notable? prove it with citation/analysis. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. Also, I don't see anything in WP:EPISODE to suggest this article isn't allowed, and even if three were it isn't official policy. It does need extensive work and clean-up. Also, if there aren't any further episode articles created for this series, then this could be considered for deletion later as an orphan. 23skidoo 02:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for a note - although WP:EPISODE is not policy, it does say that if an article is completely unvierifable, then it can be taken to AfD (paraphrasing here...). As it is, this article has no sources, stinks of orginal research and is completely unverifable.  I feel that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix these problems.  M a rtinp23 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Either keep and cleanup or merge, valid topic. JYolkowski // talk 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.