Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqua Vita


 * 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. There was no need to relist this. It's clearly not going to gain consensus in another 7 days. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Aqua Vita

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article mostly contains plot information. With nil references to withhold the notability, and merit an article, I recommend this article be deleted. Regards — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   17:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — ☮  JAaron95  Talk   17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. It got a review from Metro Silicon Valley, but I'm having trouble finding other reviews online.  There's also this interview with the writers in Into The Twilight Zone: The Rod Serling Programme Guide, a self-published book from iUniverse.  This isn't much, but maybe someone can find more/better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Pardon if I'm misinterpreting the request and its context, but are we considering a proposal to delete an article about a particular episode of the Twilight Zone? If so, I would point out there's a lot more deletion to do! There are several dozen articles of this nature and the form and function of them seems to comport with the plethora of other notable television shows on Wikipedia. While it's true that various Wikipedia guidelines point out that notability doesn't directly inherit topically, such a generalization is clearly not the case here. Having episode pages for a notable television show about which much is published in all media and in many reputable venues is sensible and an established practice. Personally, Wikipedia is my only reputable source for many television show summaries and accounts for a majority of my visits. It's clear to me that deleting an episode page (and a single one, at that) makes no sense whatsoever.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as most episode articles are kept as they serve some purpose. SwisterTwister   talk  05:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episodes. With regards to the previous two comments, a notable series does not imply that all episodes are notable, and Wikipedia is emphatically not a collection of summary-only descriptions of works. Perhaps there is a lot of deletion to do, but Other stuff exists, and until someone nominates them for deletion, we will focus on the article at hand. It is possible that many other episodes fail to meet notability guidelines, and should also be merged to a list, wherein the plot can concisely summarized, and only spun out when sufficient reliable, third-party sources have discussed the work. Note that interviews with creators are not independent. I don't think a single review in an alternative weekly is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The "Keep as most episode articles are kept as they serve some purpose" argument does not address any policy or guideline, see also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * --Animalparty! Those are certainly applicable policies here (I cited two of them in my own recommendation), but I think at some point, one has to acknowledge the sheer momentum of certain topics and practices. And Wikipedia as a home for pages of highly notable television shows' episodes is one such. Suggesting that each episode of every series on Wikipedia be cited in such a way offends the sensibilities behind WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY -- and leaves us with several hundred episodes and arguments over which ones "matter." And if we're going to bandy about policy, let's keep in mind that the one attempt at figuring out which TV episodes are "notable" -- WP:Notability_(TV_episodes) -- was shelved for lack of agreement. Like many of the essays on "notability" here outside of people and books, it's subjective stuff that no one can agree on). And besides, strictly applying policy in a way that inhibits our ability to keep an encyclopedia that has consistent coverage of topics of quality violates the WP:IGNORE policy.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, notability guidelines, while guidelines and not policy, are necessary to keep Wikipedia relatively bereft of fan-centric articles that merely cover plot, without any real-world relevance. It may be a harsh (if somewhat fuzzy) line in the sand, but if each episode (or segment of an episode) for this series "deserves" a stand-alone article, what's to stop a fan from making an article for every single issue of Superman (comic book), arguing that each one is important because it is part of a notable series? Existence does not equal notability. There are numerous wikis that are appropriate venues for in-depth plot summaries and in-universe exposition, for instance The Twilight Zone Wiki. Note that my suggestion for redirecting does not involve erasing all mention of the episode, and redirects preserve edit history: if the interested parties decide to expand List of The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episodes to give brief synopses of episodes, then information is not deleted, merely relocated, similar to how many non-notable comic book characters are relegated to say List of Marvel Comics characters: S, which also includes notable characters. Perhaps large-scale merges are called for, but that is a project beyond this AfD. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You make excellent points, and certainly in the "Wiki land rush," some fan groups have gotten away with more than others. Certainly, your proposal of more succinct summaries of pages like this in the "episodes" page is rather reasonable. But despite what we've both said, that AfD's are limited to the topic at hand, I still have to say that I don't believe that we (the group of editors and admins in AfD -- a small, if highly diverse corner of Wikipedia) have the consensus-based "authority" to do what this AfD would imply.


 * I looked over some random edit histories for these pages. They were created largely between 2004 and 2008 by a plethora of different editors. While I don't mean to raise the old "all that work!" or "if we do x, then we must do y" objections, I do think that more consensus than an AfD ought to be required to proceed as we're considering. The implications are potentially far-reaching. Perhaps, instead of an AfD, a relevant administrator or interested party could open a discussion in another area of Wikipedia to receive input from the thousands of editors who write and maintain all of these summaries. Proceeding to delete, merge, or radically restructure the area of the encyclopedia they're concerned with one article at a time hardly seems fair to anyone, including those in AfD. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unreferenced article that fails to establish notability of the subject and is little more than a plot summary so it fails WP:PLOT as well. This type of article simply shouldn't exist. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect - Delete in theory, not literally as there is an edit history. Really, redirect the page to the List of Twilight episodes page. It's just a plot summary, which can be kept elsewhere if it's necessary. The same goes for the rest of the episodes. WP:GNG is pretty basic and clear, and notability is not inherited.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for coming by and offering input! I can't say it's the input I'd hoped for, but it's in keeping with policy and other legalisms, and I have to trust folks working on the TV project know what they're doing. The outcome remains absurd. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deleting a single episode out of an entire set of articles makes no sense. Either only really notable episodes are kept (which would require a good discussion on its own), or all are kept. Randomly deleting an article out of the series is pointless. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worse than pointless; it's cynical, absurd, and inconsistent. It's policy for the sake of having policy (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY), without any thought as to the outcomes or consequences on the wider encyclopedia or its criteria. I can tell you, if I opened up an encyclopedia and it had a list of Twilight Zone episodes, with some inconspicuously removed because some editors felt like it, I'd probably not find it a very credible encyclopedia of anything, since omissions are essentially arbitrary and case-by-case. Any change in this realm, be it inclusion or deletion, must have the hallmark of consistency. If not, the whole body of the encyclopedia becomes wildly inconsistent in its coverage.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  04:48, 19 October 2015 (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.