Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex (Skins)


 * 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. Both of the keep votes in this discussion were textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF votes. No one refutes the claim that this episode does not meet WP:GNG. If you believe thet "Alex (Skins)" is a plausible search term such that it should be a redirect, feel free to re-create the article as a redirect. &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Alex (Skins)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable individual episode, all plot, using promo websites as sources. Using this delete as a trial balloon to see what action should be on many related and similarly unsource, non-notable individual episodes. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's your view then you might as well delete more than half of Wikipedia. Unreal7 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Skins (series 6) - the episode is not notable in itself; a redirect would be the most useful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty other articles have very little, if any, references. And it IS a notable episode because it's the episode that first introduces Alex Henley. Unreal7 (talk 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of Other articles should also be deleted. I also think you need to double check what WP:NOTABILITY means in the context of a wikipedia article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you go to the talk page for the user JDDJS, you'll see that that user redirected over 100 episodes of South Park, which had no more than one reference, to their respective season pages and ALL of those redirects were reverted. Why's it different here? Unreal7 (talk 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For a few reasons. First off, working with WP:Notability requires a more complex approach than just creating blanket standards for all articles of a given type (in this case, t.v. episodes). You seem to be arguing that people are not applying a consistent approach, but the thing is that not all shows are of equal stature when it comes to notability.  In particular, the comparison you've provided is as unequal as they come in that South Park is a massively more well-known show, and one that is famous for making a cultural splash and exciting controversy.   Also, you will note in the page which you referenced that the editors who called that guy out mostly went out of their way to point out that they weren't necessarily defending the content of those articles, which may or may not warrant deletion anyway, but apparently rather that they were simply irritated that he wiped out all of that content en-masse without consulting anyone and then entered into revert wars to defend the change.67.121.238.159 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every episode of every show, certainly if they contain only a retelling of the plot. RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Unreal7 there are a thousands of episode articles on wikipedia with little of sources and most of plot and summary why should be this article be any different and non-notable to the other thousands of episode articles on wikipedia? TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing about this episode, or any other single episode of the show, that garnered any significant coverage, as noted in WP:SIGCOV. Not every episode of every show needs an individual article. I could see a show episode that garnered significant ratings or explored a controversial subject that that particular show wouldn't normally approach having its own article. A simple plot synopsis though does not warrant an article. Citing that other shows have insignificant episodes with articles is not justification for keeping. If anything, they should also be reviewed and deleted if the same applies to them. NJZombie (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then you might as well delete half of Wikipedia, cause there are thousands of unsourced articles. Unreal7 (talk 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. We need to focus on the article at hand, some consensus on that is accomplishable, boiling the ocean is not.--RadioFan (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be some confusion in this discussion as to the meaning of 'notability'. Notability means that the subject recieved significant non-routine coverage in reliable sources; I suspect the reason that South Park episodes frequently get articles is because they frequently offend people and/or make controvertial statemtments about politics/the media/etc., which attracts media attention. When considering whether or not to delete this article, look for media coverage and nothing else. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There's really no arguing for WP:Notability on this one and the argument that Wikipedia is full of episode articles which fail to meet this standard is not an argument for keeping this one -- it's an argument for getting rid of the others and against further unnecessary entries. What's more, the article lacks encyclopedic tone, doing little more than relaying each minute detail of the plot to what seems to be an utterly unremarkable episode of a teen drama.  I'm sure there's a Skins wiki or some fan project out there where this might find a home, but it's clearly not appropriate here.67.121.238.159 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What if I cut down the plot? Will that help? Or should we just redirect all the Skins episodes? Unreal7 (talk 22:43, 4 April 2012 (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.