Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)


 * 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. without actual sources for this specific episode the delete arguments have not been rebutted. (hint, if you find me some detailed specific sources I can review this sympathetically) Spartaz Humbug! 03:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Art (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete - as with far too many TV episode articles, there is a lack of independent reliable sources that establish the notability of this specific episode. Per WP:EPISODE, individual episode articles should be created only if there is enough reliable information from secondary sources. Here there isn't. There is no need for a merge and redirect as the information in this article is already contained in the article for season 1 of the series and the episode's title is an improbable search term. PROD removed by editor who assumed that I didn't do the legwork before placing the tag. Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note a discussion for an episode of the same series, which resulted in deletion for just these reasons. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see there have been attempts to recreate it, as its the only one that season without an article, "16:45, 25 June 2010 B (talk | contribs) deleted "Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)" ‎ (G4, though I don't agree with it, this was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode))"--Milowent (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are many series where every episode has its own article, and this appears to be one .  I touched on this phenomenon here, Articles for deletion/Blackout! (Ugly Betty).  I don't care strongly about the organization of episode summaries, as the show here is highly notable.  Sometimes you get a merge result in one of these AfDs, Articles for deletion/The Drowned and the Saved (Law & Order episode), but then the article inevitably comes back.  I understand the reason for the nom, but IMHO its not worth it.--Milowent (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That there are other series that have articles for every episode does not mean that there should be articles for every television episode or that there should be an article for this episode. There need to be reliable sources that substantively discuss the specific episode. The best way to stop articles like these from coming back once deleted is to !vote to delete them at AFD and help establish a strong precedent against their creation and retention. Voicing a "keep" opinion does nothing to address the overall problem and encourages the creation and retention of unencyclopedic articles. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or expand the merged material There are no accepted standards for notability of episodes. I do not  consider the GNG notability standard relevant--it does not yield sensible results for this type of article. It seems reasonable that major series should contain significant information for individual episodes, either in articles or else appropriate long merged sections.  Personally, I would not care which, as long as it is merged  adequately. Alas, experience  shows that this is the sort of article where a merge as usually carried out here results in insufficient information. For the present series, most of the discussions in the combined season article are not really very poor, though they should also contain information about the production--and for that matter, so should this article. I am not convinced, btw, that a proper search has been carried out from material about the series. Has it been limited to the  Googles? It would also need to include the appropriate indexing services for video and popular culture, and account for material that might be in comprehensive works about the series, the actors, and so on.    DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard that applies to every single article and enjoys wide consensus amongst editors is not relevant to an entire class of articles?! That's very convenient. Carving out exceptions that allow non-notable subjects to have articles means we might as well shut down AFD (something I suspect you'd be in favor of). Where then does the line get drawn, if not at WP:GNG? GNG yields outstanding results for this and every other Wikipedia article. It's a very simple flowchart: Have multiple independent reliable sources included substantial coverage of the episode? YES ---> article NO ---> no article. Woolly-headed nonsense about what people expect in a season-length episode article as justification for including non-notable episode articles is not a substitute for the simple standard that every other sort of article is expected to meet. Season-length articles, including this one, can and do include production information like the writer and director (something whoever put together this article didn't bother to do and basic plot summaries (as opposed to the WP:PLOT-violating episode summary included here). Any episode that garners coverage in independent reliable sources can then have an article written.
 * Thank you, by the way, for your COLOSSAL failure to assume that I did due diligence before nominating this article. That really elevated the debate. Otto4711 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you review the 100s of AfDs like this and drama debates that have gone nowhere for years? Let's not go crazy here, we are all acting in good faith.--Milowent (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines and searched for reliable sources that substantively cover this particular episode. Finding nothing in those policies or guidelines, or in the available resources, that indicates the notability of this particular episode, I nominated it for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge. Notability issues notwithstanding, it fails WP:PLOT spectacularly. Which could be dealt with editing if there are sources. Yet I see no reason to simply delete. I think that to have a list of episodes with a quick summary of each episode is the best compromise: about as informative and more compact unless sources (e.g. reviews) of the episode give something more that deserves a full article. -- Cycl o pia  talk  21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the existing information at the season level article is more comprehensive than what's in the existing article and given that no one is likely ever to search for "Art (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)" there is no need to merge, since the existing plot summary in the nominated article fails WP:PLOT. Otto4711 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It didn't take long to find a source: Law & Order: Crime Scenes. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And on what pages of that general source on the Law & Order franchise is the substantial coverage of this particular episode? There is no question that the franchise is notable. What is required to retain this article on this episode are reliable sources that substantially cover this particular episode. "There are sources about the franchise" doesn't cut it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete not sources establish independent notability for this episode, fails GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect or merge. Whatever.  It's a given to me that someone who really cares, and has access to a multi thousand dollar lexis nexis account could establish notability and create a GA out of this (Check out the Homicide: Life on the Street GAs for examples).  But, it's from 2001, and no GA creating editor cares about LnO right now, and wiki's rules don't have the right exceptions, so do you what you must, closing admin. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The last I heard, the baseless assumption that sources exist does not satisfy our notability criteria. The existence of reliable sources is a pre-requisite to an article. Articles are written from reliable sources; they are not written in the hope that one day reliable sources will somehow be discovered. Otto4711 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. No significant coverage, and we can't just presume that significant coverage exists. If any editor wants to work on it, we could send it over to the article incubator or userfy it. Claritas § 16:45, 30 June 2010 (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.