Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog-whistle politics (Scandal)


 * 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. Since it has been relisted twice, closing it. The episode seems to have received coverage specifically focused on it and the consensus leans towards keeping it. Renamed to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode). (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   02:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Dog-whistle politics (Scandal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about particular episode in the TV show "Scandal." Shouldn't this episode be included in that realm instead of making a completely new article about one episode? TheInformativePanda (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Making a Wikipedia page for each episode doesn't help the fans of the series nor everybody else, especially 'Dog-whistle politics' is a political term used in the UK. Article should be merged.45sixtyone (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep but move to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode) for correctness/clarity. Television episodes applies, the Huffington Post article provides a little context/reflection, the Time magazine ref establishes notability, and the article is properly constructed and contains information over and above that in the Episode List. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk) 14:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree: Keep but move to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode) because it does meet the notability standards. Amazingstuff101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that it received more press that most television episodes, but it is not independently notable. The articles go to the notability of Scandal. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What would you consider required to reach sufficient notibility for this episode (independently)? In the case of this Scandal episode:
 * As with everything, there are enough mundane recaps, episode reviews, and ratings information to provide a base article (not sufficient in itself to establish notability).
 * Time rating this particular episode as one of the third-best episode of 2015 adds weight to the episode's Reception.
 * For a dissenting view see this.
 * This piece puts the episode into specific context with a dispute between former NYT critic Alessandra Stanley and Scandal's showrunner. Shonda Rhimes (ref not in current article) -- this provides some more background on the incident.
 * This piece includes comment by Rhimes on the episode/context.
 * Another piece which links the incident with this episode is this.
 * The Huffington Post article explicitly discusses the issues raised by this episode.
 * The contextual information cannot be easily and naturally included in an aggregated page.
 * Perhaps WP:Television episodes could do with a community-agreed rubric for notability given the huge quantity of episode-specific articles on wikipedia (cf Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes). Cheers, undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  14:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The article is weak, and there might be an argument for merging it into a season list, but there's enough provided significant coverage from reliable sources that it demonstrates notability beyond just the show itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2015 (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.