Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And Then There Were 10


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And Then There Were 10

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Pure episode summary of an episode of Ben 10, delete as indiscriminate collection of information, article does not establish notability outside of the TV show. Phirazo 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There are full episode summaries of each of the episodes of this show. Deleting this one would necessitate the deletion of all of the rest. The series is notable for its presence on the Cartoon Network, a major cable network in the US. --Mattarata 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The above goes for any show at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacific Coast Highway (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment The series is notable.  This individual episode is not.  Also, this AfD is not about deleting all Ben 10 episode articles; this individual episode can be delinked in the appropriate places.  -- Phirazo 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not directed toward the show, I was speaking for all shows in general. Your rationale states "does not establish notablilty outside of the TV show". That's vauge. Pacific Coast Highway { The internet • runs on Rainbows! } 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quote from WP:NOT: "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." I don't see any "real-world context" or "sourced analysis", and I doubt there ever could be any. --Phirazo 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try this again. You want to delete this article citing it as "indiscriminate information". Then by your definition, all the episodes should be put up for deletion, since they follow the same format. You also say that this is not notable. Care to explain how it's not, seeing as it's the pilot episode and serves as the basis of the entire show? It's one thing to cite policy, it's another thing to prove where it violates it. Pacific Coast Highway { The internet • runs on Rainbows! } 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. This is not a mass AfD. Please discuss whether or not this article should be deleted. 2.  The episode in question is non-notable because there are not enough reliable, 3rd party sources to write an article.  3. The article is a scene-by-scene plot summary of a TV episode.  If that is all it will ever be, then it falls under WP:NOT.  --Phirazo 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that this was a mass AfD? I only said that if you're going to can this one, can them all since they fall into the same category that you have placed this one in. But I do credit you for giving an explanation. My stance still stands. I also took the time to read some of the discussions surrounding this issue and they all seem to agree that AfD's like this will cause more harm than good. And TV.com no longer counts as a independent source?  I'd like to note that the notabilty guidelines state "seconday sources". Not Third party. Pacific Coast Highway { The internet •  runs on Rainbows! } 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point you to another nomination you have made, which led to "no consensus" on the subject. There has been no agreement that it does fall into "indiscriminate information", only subjective opinion. In fact, most of the delete votes were made as a result of misreading or by ignoring parts of the policy. This debate will most likely conclude in the same fashion. Pacific Coast Highway { The internet • runs on Rainbows! } 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to the TV.com summary is here. TV.com is not a reliable source (especially for "sourced analysis", which this article is sorely lacking), since most of the content comes from general users.  --Phirazo 04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've said what I needed to say. I'll leave it up to whover closes this issue. Pacific Coast Highway { The internet • runs on Rainbows! } 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some episodes of some series are notable - for instance, the Twilight Zone where Meredith breaks his glasses. But every episode of every notable series is not going to become a part of pop culture. This means that these articles will never be anything beyond plot summaries and "special guest" lists, occasionally with an item or two of dubious-quality trivia. While the information is interesting - sometimes even fascinating - to pour over, I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia. I'm not aware of a TV-related Wiki, but there surely must be one leading candidate to which this material can be transferred. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, however - airdates and episode titles of television shows are good. WP:NOT. Episodes of television shows which have made a timeless, lasting impression on popular culture - and yes, I am a stodgy, pole-in-the-ass academic - deserve mention. The third episode of the fourth season of Aaron Spelling's Presentation of Stephen King's Suchandwhat does not deserve an article of its own. The "keep" vote above me seems to be based on a slippery slope fallacy, with shades of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sure that my opinion is not the most popular one there is - but if WP:NOT, then I think it's best to begin backing that up with action - even if it means hundreds and hundreds of new AfDs. --Action Jackson IV 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or at worst merge. I am fine with almost any television show broadcast on a major network having its own article.  If you don't want that, then I would be content with including the information on a page like List of Ben 10 episodes.  But deletion?  Nope.  If you want other content, see if that can be added.  Especially for the premiere episode, which could have a lot of information come out about it.  Has this show been released on DVD with a directory's commentary?  That would be quite useful in adding more content.  But seriously though, if this is about  a general issue, then it's important to note that isn't just an issue which would impact one series, but literally dozens.  I suggest taking it to the Village Pump instead.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Individual episode articles are extensions of the main TV show article and per FrozenPurpleCube.  -- Black Falcon 19:59, 17 March 2007 (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.