Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimera (The X-Files)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Chimera (The X-Files)

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

Almost no content. It is on a list of episodes already and has no verifiable notability worth its own article. SunDragon34 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —SunDragon34 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Episodes aren't individually notable. I see nothing that makes this one so. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per the otter chorus. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've expanded the article, added references, appropriate template, as well as a plot summary. Also on the question of Notability, how is this article any less notable than this one, or this one, or even this one. --Superflewis (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They first two qually fail at establishing notability, and should be deleted or redirected as well, and the third at least tries to establish some notability, but isn't really much better if you read the article. – sgeureka t•c 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  (Delete or) redirect  to List of episodes. Nonnotable episode (WP:N). All used sources are unreliable (WP:RS) or trivial, and (so far) only support the plot, which can neatly fit into the LoE and doesn't really need sourcing in the first place (the episode itself is the source). – sgeureka t•c 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. How is imdb and unreliable source? tv.com and space.com are used regularly within multiple wikipedia articles.
 * Also, according to your rationale, should most of the X-Files individual episodes be deleted for failing Notability requirements? I think that for this case, it would be best to Ignore all rules and keep the article. --Superflewis (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IMDb, tv.com and space.com are not reliable because they have no editorial oversight (they are just like wikipedia in that sense). Are you sure you know What "Ignore all rules" means? And yes, all episode articles (of whatever show) should be merged, redirected or deleted until they demonstrate notability (which usually means a Production and a Reception section as to not violate WP:NOT) and WP:SPLIT. Pilots, finales, and award-nommed/award-winning episodes usually have more time before notability is questioned. – sgeureka t•c 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added extra references - 9 in total. I think that this cements the article as being notable enough to remain in the encyclopedia. This article has Multiple inbound links, is well writen, contains inline citations and is categorized - everything necessary to withdraw it from Afd. Bear in mind, that this article was nominated as having "Almost no content" - which I fixed, and it is notable enough to include upwards of 9 references. The sources are all Primary and Verifiable, and therefore the article should not be deleted --Superflewis (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Merge the one real-world info sentence to List of episodes. Still no significant third-party sources to prove notability, and not enough significant primary production sources to qualify for a spinout. – sgeureka t•c 08:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said below, there is more production information available from this book, but it won't make sense to add it until the plot section is expanded. And I can't personally expand the plot section without re-watching the episode. Still, what we have is a good, clean stub, which is perfectly fine. I'm not sure where people came up with this idea that TV episode articles must be GAs upon creation. The article has potential for expansion, so I think we should just leave it alone. Zagalejo^^^ 18:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would someone create stubby spinouts (emphasis additionally added) on non-notable topics (your guide is a primary source and therefore doesn't establish notability) when everything can neatly fit into a List of Episodes? But I see I am fighting a losing battle, though not for lack of sound arguments. – sgeureka t•c 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously people like it that way. I prefer it for formatting reasons, because of the extra info they can contain.  I'd feel the same if the plot summary were smaller on individual pages than on the LOE.  I like that everything on that page is guaranteed to be about that episode, and I don't have to sift through a (sometimes way) larger page to find it.  If I want an overview, the LOE is always still there.  The infobox with cast and crew and individualized external links are something that just doesn't scale well to the LOE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists of episodes limit what you could potentially say about an episode, since you only get a few sentences for each. And the episode guide is just as good of source as any. Marc Shapiro is not a member of the X-Files staff, and any source is going to rely, to some extent, on interviews with the writers, actors etc. It's not like there's an independent historian hiding under a table and taking notes while the episode is being produced. Zagalejo^^^ 19:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * keep per recent improvements.Chuletadechancho (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentThe entire plot section is a copyvio of this. (Doesn't anyone learn about plagiarism these days?) But I do think this topic merits inclusion. This book has some fairly extensive production information. If you have an Amazon account, you can take a look. And this source might be useful, as well. I don't really feel like performing a last-minute cleanup, so I'd recommend deleting the article now, and letting me recreate it later with a blank slate. Zagalejo^^^ 01:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've re-written the plot to include multiple references. --Superflewis (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still needs some more paraphrasing. I left a note on your talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Superflewis (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there were still a few parts that needed paraphrasing, but I just did it myself. Zagalejo^^^ 03:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Plagiarism problems resolved. Now I'll try to add material from this and this. Zagalejo^^^ 03:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a little bit. There's more that could be said about the production, but first we'll need to expand the plot section so that everything makes sense. I might do that soon, although I haven't actually seen this episode for a while, so I should probably track down a copy before I write too much. Zagalejo^^^ 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and the further improvements can then be dealt with If necessary that portion could even be blanked. Probably most of all episodes of shows this important get individual reviews and thus merit individual articles. Whether we ought to do long group articles is a possible question for general discussion, but is a matter of style, not notability. DGG (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 19 September 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.