Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drought Conditions (2nd nomination)


 * 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 to delete. There is a fair amount of discussion below, though not as well attended as one might wish, but no real consensus emerges. This is a topic about which we should clearly have some coverage but it is not certain whether it should be a separate article or an entry in a list. AussieLegend cogently argues that there is space in the season list to include all the relevant and sourceable content. On the other hand, DDG's point that episodes of a particular TV series should usually be treated in the same way is also reasonable and explicitly endorsed by Roscelese. So while merging may well be a viable long-term solution, if it is to be done, it shouldn't be done one episode at a time. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Drought Conditions
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an unreferenced article that fails to establish notability of the subject. It contains only a plot summary and a list of guest stars, all of which has been merged into the season article. As an article that is essentially a plot only summary it fails WP:PLOT and, as all content has been merged to The West Wing (season 6), the article is now fully redundant to that article. I tried redirecting this article, but it was opposed, with the opposer citing a DRV discussion.

The article was originally deleted after AfD in February 2010, but was restored after DRV. The nominator at DRV expressed concerns over a number of issues: Despite those concerns, the simple fact is that this article does not establish notability, fails WP:PLOT and is now significantly duplicates content contained in The West Wing (season 6). Accordingly this article should not exist. AussieLegend (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The AfD was sparsely attend - This happens all the time, but it is really no reason to restore an article that was deleted for valis reasons. Even the nominator acknowledged that the AfD closer did not close poorly.
 * This is the only episode for which there is not an article - There is no requirement to have articles for every episode. Only articles that meet the requirements of WP:N, WP:V and MOS:TV should exist. In fact, of the 154 episode articles that exist for The West Wing]], 136 fail to meet the requirements of our policies and guidelines.
 * It appears to be the only episode article that was nominated for deletion - This is in the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In reality 135 other articles should have been nominated, but for some reason weren't.
 * lack of deletion of other articles implies tacit consensus for recreation of the article - One could use this argument for most DRVs and, if it was valid, there would be no point in even nominating most articles at AfD. The more likely reason is simply apathy, which is probably also the reason the entire West Wing series of episode related articles have not been improved and contained multiple errors until I started fixing them a few weeks ago.
 * Comment- There are 130 listed at, including the template. Even if none had content, the only foreseeable result would be to redirect the episodes to the appropriate season. This seems to be the wrong venue, and would probably be better served as a comprehensive WP:RFC than WP:RFD, though you're right that this is a terrible example. The show was wildly popular, and I'm sure the ratings are available somewhere, but I don't know how to find them. Other real world context would likely be more difficult, except for those who already know where to look. Still, There is no deadline. Dru of Id (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * erroneously includes a number of articles that don't qualify as stubs, but stubs aren't the issue here. There were suggestions at the DRV that the article be recreated at Drought Conditions (West Wing episode) although this was never done. There is no disambiguation page for "Drought conditions" so the only way to find this article is to use the correct capitalisation. If you use incorrect capitalisation (Drought conditions or drought conditions) you end up at Drought, which has no link to the subject of this AfD. In the event that this article were to be retained, it should really be moved, with Drought Conditions becoming a redirect to Drought conditions, which should be a disambiguation page. However, it seems a waste of time moving this article now when it's just as easy to create Drought Conditions (West Wing episode) as a redirect if this article is deleted again. As for ratings, in the event that somebody decided to add them, there are additional fields in Episode list so that the ratings could be added to the season articles, where'd they'd make more sense than in individual episode articles because they could be easily be compared against each other. However, nobody seems interested in improving The West Wing episode and season articles. A few weeks ago I discovered that a season 6 article existed, although it wasn't linked to from List of The West Wing episodes. Instead, episode lists that existed in both The West Wing (season 6) and The West Wing (season 7) were duplicated (almost) in List of The West Wing episodes. I've since corrected duplication and numerous other errors in both season articles and transcluded the lists to List of The West Wing episodes. I've also created articles for the first 5 seasons and reworked List of The West Wing episodes completely. Despite all this work, nobody has shown any interest except when I started sorting out the episode articles. There just doesn't seem to be any interest in bringing the articles up to an appropriate standard. While you might be correct in stating there is no deadline, as lovely as that essay is, it doesn't mean we should allow articles that fail to meet basic requirements stay alive forever, especially when nobody seems interested in improving them. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was the one who split these articles out a million years ago (was it really 2006...). I'd like to see all of the individual articles merged into season pages, as I believe individual articles are unnecessary and no longer the best approach. Selectively deleting episodes (which has already happened) is a terrible approach. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With no help, or interest in helping it seems (only criticism), I'm already merging articles. This one though was problematic. There has been no selective deleting of articles. No articles have been deleted at all at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Simmer down. You're the one creating a deadline. Which is fine, but then you can meet it yourself. Merging these articles is something that should be done eventually, but I see no rush. I believe another individual episode article has been deleted previously and remains deleted. I'd tell you which one exactly, but there are other things I need to be doing right now. You personally have also nominated or proposed several articles for deletion recently, so I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest otherwise (or coming dangerously close to suggesting otherwise). What, exactly, is exceptional about this article? So much so that it should not even be a redirect. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not creating a deadline at all. The articles have been sadly lacking for some time and I've only recently discovered that. Rather than procrastinate though, I've set about trying to correct the problems. The episodes that I've prodded have not been chosen selectively as you've suggested. They've been chosen in simple alpha-numeric order. As I indicated on your talk page, I've been going through the articles progressively. The reason why this article has been nominated is explained in the first paragraph of the nomination. Its conversion to a redirect was opposed by an editor who says that unless we merge all of the articles we can't get rid of any. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate all of the work you've put in so far and I trust that you'll make the appropriate decisions necessary to improve the encyclopedia. I can't imagine I'll have any time to help (life has changed quite a bit since 2006 ;-) but I wish you luck in your cleanup efforts. I still believe that every episode has enough notability to warrant being mentioned here somewhere (in season lists, preferably) and that consistent treatment of the individual episodes is important. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this was the article that was previously deleted. Twice, I think. Not sure how it came back. Not particularly surprising that it did, though. It makes no sense to have articles on every episode except one. I'm still completely unclear why deletion would be better than redirection here. If it's just a sourcing issue, that seems fairly easy to resolve. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How the article came back is explained in the nomination. Deletion after AfD was overturned at DRV. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the parent article. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Consistency is a virtue, especially within handling a series. I think this is possibly a series that does warrant such extended treatment, but even if I thought otherwise, I would never consider omitting one episode. (Including a separate article on one particularly notable episode of a series can be another matter, but if most episodes are notable, its simpler to handle them all similarly than argue on each of them. The reason against redirection is that the information contained in list of episodes articles or sections is inadequate for understanding and therefore not encyclopedic .  DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you've said really doesn't seem to make much sense. The encyclopaedic content from several of the 136 related articles that fail WP:PLOT and or fail to establish notability of the subject has been quite easily merged into the episode list articles which seem entirely adequate for understanding, since they contain exactly the same information that was in the episode articles. Deletion or redirection doesn't omit one episode, there are several that are now quite rightly redirects, and a few that have been deleted. The content still exists, it's just now easier to get to from the season articles. This particular article is nothing more than a unreferenced plot summary that fails to establish notability, and all encyclopaedic content is now in the season article, so what does this article provide that the season article does not? The answer is nothing, and our policies and guidelines say it shouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're assuming what you need to prove, that this material is not encyclopedic. How extensive plot information should be is not something on which there is real agreement here, but my rule of thumb is that it must at least be enough so that a casual viewer who did not see the episode can maintain continuity, or a non-viewer follow a discussion about the story lines without seeming stupid. The information in most episode lists does not do so. The information in many episode articles contains a somewhat too much, usually not very well presented. The choice is fuller lists, or shorter articles. Experience here shows that if we go to the list option, the content will inevitably be reduced below the level of intelligibility. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything, I just think your logic and arguments are a little skewed. For example, your claim that there is no real agreement over the extent of plot information is not completely true. Episode list specifies 100-300 words while WP:TVPLOT specifies "200 to 500 words" for an episode article and "approximately 100–200 words" for a season article "with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines". That's the current agreement. Comparison of the length of plot summaries in episode and season articles does not apply here, since the plot summary in both articles is identical. Similarly, your argument about reducing the content in the list articles doesn't apply. The plot summaries in the episode articles are generally well within 's 100-200 word recommendation (Drought Condition is 193 words) so there's no need to prune and, so far, the response to cleaning up the lists has been minimal. Nobody seems interested in doing anything, let alone prune episode lists. Your arguments to keep this redundant article are based on issues that don't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG and per consensus at the recent DRV. I know it's a pain, but if you want to delete these articles, you're going to have to do it en masse. As I said back then: Wikipedia doesn't need to cover individual episodes, but given that we do, we can't leave readers wondering what happened between "Freedonia" and "A Good Day," because that detracts from our coverage of the series and is worse than just having a season-by-season episode list with external links to more detail. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:06, 4 February 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.