Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can You Hear Me Now?


 * 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. Discuss a potential merger elsewhere. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can You Hear Me Now?

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

None of these episodes asserts any form of notability. The articles consist entirely of an overlong plot summary written in informal prose, and have been lacking reliable sources at least since 2007, judging from the tags on two articles. Not one single episode in this series seems to be notable, and the (mostly unnecessary) qualifiers in the title make them unlikely redirect targets. At least one also has a trivia section. I'm going with these since it's the first batch I found, and indeed believe that almost all of the episodes from this particular series should be deleted, as they have a very high potential of the redirects being undone by fans. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm going to go with delete before too long, but is there a CSI-pedia for all of this stuff?Tyrenon (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Putting aside the inherent problem of having so many AfDs batched together (extreme complications of "keep a, d and q but delete b, g and y" scenarios typically abound), just be being internationally released episodes of an extremely popular television series is an assertion of notability. Just because sources haven't been inserted into the articles yet doesn't mean they don't exist.  Wikipedia has no deadline.  There's a lot of work involved in articles like this and unless there's something slanderous or dubious, there is no rush to have a completely sources article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm more concerned about the lack of notability through in-depth coverage in reliable sources than verifiability itself based on the unreliable references used. Wikipedia is not a directory and these articles have no potential of being anything but directory entries without violating some principle such as no original research.  If MASH episodes aren't appropriate, these certainly aren't.  I don't have a problem with the group deletion, it makes perfect sense in this situation.  If any one is notable, speak now or forever hold your peace. I also agree no need to leave redirects, delete totally and absolutely. Drawn Some (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to an episode list. Edward321 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. An episode list with a one or two sentence summary and an outside link is fine.  However, I oppose the inclusion of rafts of non-notable episodes with their own pages.Tyrenon (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete See my comment under AfD "To Market To Market (M*A*S*H)." Or don't. I don't care. I just get tired of a) uberfans creating pages for every episode, and 2) the debate over which episodes are noteworthy enough for their own pages and which aren't. If it's a good enough show, it should have its own Wiki, and leave this one out of it. PacificBoy  09:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * basically you are saying that for the good shows, we should eliminate the material because it will be covered elsewhere. (I doubt you mean we should contain only the poor ones that nobody has devoted a wiki to) On that basis we could delete essentially every topic in the encyclopedia; come to think of it, every topic, because if it is not covered elswhere it should not be covered here.DGG (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and decide separately about merging in a proper discuss with more general notice; it is fundamentally a matter of style. What matters is that we should have a reasonably full description of each of them. If the combined versions are teasers, it's no good; if the separate ones are excessive, also no good. I agree that MASH episodes will in general be  more notable--and in my opinion, for very good reasons. If we have unfortunately deleted some of them; we shouldnt compound the mistake by deleting everything else. DGG (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all to an episode list as per the usual standard for such things. CSI is not such an amazing or perfect show that it deserves individual articles for most of it's episodes. Jtrainor (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all I checked out the first of these and had no difficulty finding sources. Just the usual case of WP:NOEFFORT which we do not address by deletion, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2009 (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.