Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Amanda


 * 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   keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad Amanda

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

not notable; also sources provided do not deeply examine topic Curb Chain (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles has a handful of independent sources, and the first reference by the Futon Critic gives a pretty detailed description of the episode, and I was able to find other articles with significant coverage. Considering that this article meets Wikipedia's television episode guideline, and considering that every other episode of Ugly Betty has it own article, I think we need to keep this one. NJ Wine (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a press release from the network who makes these shows! Complete conflict of interest/WP:PRIMARY SOURCEs do not constitute notability.  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not mean this should, and I am being scrupulous for not nominating the other articles!  And WP:SUPPORT does not work in deletion discussions.Curb Chain (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles such as does not indicate notability outside of the show, so you can bombard the article (and other articles in this series, season, or wholly other series for this matter) with these sources but this won't indicate notability.  And as listed by WP:TVEP, individual episodes are notable if they are exceptional compared to others ("...outstanding..." in its terms).Curb Chain (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:TVEP gives editors broad discretion about whether only seasons of a show should have articles, or whether each episode should have an article. For example, WP:TVEP cites The Simpsons (season 8) as a good TV article, and when you read that article, every episode of the Simpsons for that season gets its own article. Episodes do not need to be exceptional to have an article. NJ Wine (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe each episode in that season of Simpsons is notable, per indepth discussion from 3rd party sources, but that argument does mean that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS holds weight. Note your mention of the "broad" discretion of WP:TVEP which is essentially useless for determining notability.Curb Chain (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Could this be merged to article on the season? Standards of notability for TV episodes are a mess (or at least, enforced very poorly), as the above discussion indicates. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia's television episode guidelines are very ambiguous, and there is no consistant practice. Some major TV shows have articles for every episode, whereas only have one article per season.  Bad Amanda has a few indepedent sources discussing it, and if it were a stand-alone one-time show, its notability would be borderline.  However, I think we need to look at this in the context of the Ugly Betty TV series.  The show has 85 episodes, and all 85 have articles about them -- see List of Ugly Betty episodes. I think it would be bizarre for 84 episodes of a TV show to get their own Wikipedia article, and 1 not to have its own article. NJ Wine (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The same thing happened with Grey's Anatomy. I nominated almost all of the episodes for deletion and almost all of them were redirected.  Per WP:N if an article is not notable it should be deleted.  Some episodes get an article, but this doesn't mean this doesn't violate WP:NOT, it just means that noone has deleted them yet.Curb Chain (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination contradicts itself; it declares that the topic is not notable then it states that there are sources which discuss it. In any case, as this is a split of the main topic for reasons of space, there's no case for deletion as any consolidation would be best done by merger per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We can redirect these articles into the season in which it appears and use some information from this article to fill the pertaining season's article if this is necessary. If we are to keep the article, it would violate a policy, and not a guideline: WP:NOT.Curb Chain (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * merge/redirect as usual, but keeping the information. The Grey's Anatomy articles are not a good precedent, because most of the information was lost. What we are lacking is a way of directing the preservation of content in such decisions. In the past I have therefore supported the retention of separate articles, but I'm going to try an assumption that the people less happy with this sort of content are not going to keep trying to remove it but will content themselves with not having separate articles.  DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Articles for deletion/Blackout! (Ugly Betty).--Milowent • hasspoken 03:21, 3 July 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.