Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Halves


 * 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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Better Halves

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has no reliably sourced evidence of notability. Tagged with 23 November 2007 with no improvements in the interim. I initially tagged the article with stating: "Article lacks evidence of notability, consisting of plot and trivia", but immediately returned and redirected the article to List of Heroes episodes as more apropos. Redirection reverted by : "Revert redirect/contest PROD. Please send to Articles for Deletion." Per user's request. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Note that I did not "request" listing the article here, just suggesting that nominator list it here because I contested the initial prod (I should have used the word 'instead'). Article is subject to improvement though. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - what we have here is no more than a plot summary. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article needs improvement, but this can and will be accomplished through the addition of information sourced from commentaries and third-party reviews. Deletion is not warranted (and was not Edoktor's "request".). --Ckatz chat spy  00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the notability by reliable sources is available, then the article does not reflect this. Having done a modicum of research, the Heroes season 1 DVDs do not have a commentary for "Better Halves" to use for reference.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Heroes is notable enough for each of it's episodes to have it's own article --T-rex 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How so, if not evidenced by the article? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look Here Heroes (TV series) --T-rex 19:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, Heroes easily passes the bar for meeting the Wikipedia notabilith requirements. I don't see how that applies to this article, though: Notability is not inherited.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will echo what I wrote at the Heroes WikiProject discussion page: All—yes, all—Heroes episodes are notable enough to reach featured or good status, however, WikiProject members are either too busy with other projects or too busy in real life to clean up the articles. Thus, I support redirection.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reread WP:INHERITED and look at what it actually says. If the article needs clean up is irrelevent. The question is if the topic is notable, and can be sourced, and both are true for this topic. --T-rex 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ckatz. The article needs cleanup, not total deletion. --Piemanmoo (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The general dissention is that the article needs improvement, and should be kept. All failing articles "need improvement", but if the article is not, or cannot be brought to meet the muster of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it shouldn't be kept.  Having been tagged as lacking, the article was not improved or worked upon to correct its deficiency, nor even since the initiation of this AfD.  I found no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to meet the notability requirement either inside or outside the article. Secondly, I prefer/advocate the redirection of the page as I attempted to do initially (see above).  a) This would preserve the integrity of internal links pointing to this page and b) would preserve the history of the page, so that should the requisite real-world resources for notability come out, further editors can restore sections of the original article w/o the duplication of effort.  However, as noted initially, my redirection of the page to its appropos target was reverted, and I was pointed "to Articles for Deletion" instead. Failing redirection, the article does not meet the notability guideline for articular inclusion.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to List of Heroes episodes. No assertion of real world notability and the article fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICTION.  Notability of the series does not descend to its episodes.  Article has been tagged for Notability issues since November, so there has been ample time to provide any possible notability.  As pd_THOR also noted, no one has made any attempt to do so even after the AfD. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to List of Heroes episodes to allow transwikiing and because you never know if companion guides come out for production details etc. Heroes is a fine show, but the absence of audio commentaries doesn't fare well for keeping the article any longer. (I know it has been discussed since at least October that the wikiproject will try to fix the episode notability problem alone, but maybe a push is needed to find an acceptable new form for the episode presentation.) – sgeureka t•c 08:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep meets our core policies. Catchpole (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is possible to write a verifiable, neutrally written article based on reliable sources on this subject. Articles that would exist in a specialist encyclopedia (say a Heroes encyclopedia) should also exist in Wikipedia. Catchpole (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiability and neutrality aren't presently problems with this article; and while it currently lacks reliable sources for one section, it was primarily nominated for deletion because it lacks any evidence of meeting the notability requirement. Secondly, I don't understand where you're coming from with the assertion that Wikipedia should have equitable articles as any specialist encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure there's no basis for that; am I misunderstanding you on this point?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to come to the view that the emphasis placed on notability in these discussions is a red herring, notability is useful for speedily deleting articles on your neighbourhood band or your best friend's hot older sister but not for subjects which can be trivially verified. For the second point, this follows from Wikipedia is not paper and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are two relevant quotes from your link - Not paper: "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars." and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION". TTN (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary with no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ckatz and Piemanmoo. Rewrite the article, don't simply delete it. dposse (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been tagged needing work or a rewrite since 23 November; is the notability there for it to be written into the article? Having not been, and having not found it, rewriting the article won't make so.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is just a large plot summary that is already adequately covered on the episode list. There is currently nothing asserting improvement, so there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and other delete arguments. Not notable. --Jack Merridew 12:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect. Months ago, I put up notices on the project page that we needed to clean up the articles. It didn't get too far, and nothing has provoked the project into really getting a move on. This article shows one particular piece of notability, that it was Larter's submission for award consideration. That's hardly enough notability to stand alone, as so many of the first season episodes have that level for one cast member or another. Merge back to the list of Episodes. ThuranX (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect The question is simple: can sufficient real-world notability backed up by reliable sources be asserted for the topic? Answer: no, based on all available evidence. Hence: no article per WP:N as explained at WP:FICT. There is no argument made above in favour of retention that responds directly to this problem. CKatz makes the claim that article ... improvement ... can and will be accomplished through the addition of information sourced from commentaries and third-party reviews, but there is simply no evidence whatsoever that this individual episode aspires to the kind of substantial real-world impact that we use to determine whether episodes should stand on their own or not. As for the other views, they are largely an assemblage of ATAs. Eusebeus (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails notability. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The television episodes guideline states "if the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article…" The episode is notable as critical reviews, cast or crew interviews and behind the scenes featurettes are available, however editors voting "keep" have failed to demonstrate that they can add real-world information to the article.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it's stupid to delete building blocks like this. It's an article, but there's this all or nothing reasoning that articles that don't include everything from a wish list just aren't good enough.  Only a "complete" article will do.  Well, where does collaboration come in if articles have to meet "completion" standards from the get go?  Why waste what's been done so far just because the rest hasn't been added yet?  I think we should WP:IAR and leave the article in place so that eventually someone can add the missing items.  Look below, the article is part of the way to including all the items on the WP:EPISODE wish list:
 * A brief summary of the episode's plot (see below) ✅ - but could go down the drain via deletionist all or nothing reasoning
 * How the episode was received by critics
 * Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
 * Real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element
 * I don't see how the guidelines provide justification to waste the work that has gone into the article so far. Most of the editors who work on Wikipedia don't know these guidelines anyways.  So they keep adding and we keep wasting their efforts.  How many thousands of man hours of effort are we wasting with this approach?  It's stupid.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing the article be kept so as not to waste the time and effort that's already gone into it, which is one of the arguments to avoid. But it also comes from assuming the position that the article can be brought up to standards in the first place, which in and of itself has not been evidenced in either this AfD or the article.  You're proposing that an article which does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria just be ignored and hope it will ... someday?  That's implausable. Deleting this article would result in the plot summary "going down the drain".  That hard work can only be retained by keeping the article.  Or asking it be undeleted by an admin should it warrant.  Or copied to your userspace.  Or watching/reading about the episode and rewriting it. Ultimately, this stupid AfD process wastes hundreds of hours of work every day (if not more so).  But it's instrumental in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedic resource as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information.  I'm sorry you disagree with that policy, but it is.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per detailed post above me. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the can be improved and real world content can be added. it just may take some time for a project member to commit to the task.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (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.