Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episode One (The Office, Series One)


 * 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   merge to List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Episode One (The Office, Series One)

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

Non notable unreferenced episode. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  23:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   — TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  00:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The articles are not as good as they should be, but having done a quick google search, each episode is notable enough for an article, IMO. I'm not at home or using my own computer at the moment, otherwise I would add references myself. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lack of citations is not a reason for deletion. Information needs to be verifiable, and it is. The episodes themselves are sources. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lack of notability however is a reason for deletion. – sgeureka t•c 07:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * TV episodes are inherently notable. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to which guideline? Even WP:NOTINHERITED says the opposite. – sgeureka t•c 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that isn't a guideline. It's an essay. And I'm not going to argue about this with you; you know as well as I do that they're notable, or you wouldn't even be advocating their inclusion the main list. They can have their own articles for the same reason they get a separate, comprehensive listing on Wikipedia: TV shows have at least some inherent level of notability. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * that isn't a guideline. It's an essay. - Exactly. There are no policies and guidelines, and your blanket reasoning is included in an essay named Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please also refrain from putting words in my mouth; I do not know as well as [you] do that they're notable (I don't live in the UK), and even if the episodes were individually notable (proof anyone?), I'd still argue to summarize their plot in a list until they satisfy for a WP:SPINOUT without violating WP:NOT. – sgeureka t•c 10:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the point. The page you keep pointing out to everyone is an essay, but the page that says the articles can stay is called WP:V. It's a pretty well-known policy, and it's the only standard that has to be met. If you don't think they're notable at all, why would you support their inclusion on a list? List items have the same standards for notability. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote from WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"; the request to add third-party sources to establish notability has been virtually ignored for 15 months (some would say because there are no such sources), so you can draw your own conclusions for the articles from the comment you just made. Anyway, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise also shows consensus that lists do not necessarily operate under WP:N, a view I share for the time being. – sgeureka t•c 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And you're welcome to your opinion. You stated it below, and that's sufficient. When it becomes policy, let me know. My point - based on policy - is that reliable, third-party sources can be found. There's nothing that says they have to be cited in the article. They just have to exist somewhere. Again, that was my original point: They're out there, and you can go find them if you want, but nobody is required to cite them. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it's not my WP:BURDEN to find and add sources, it's yours. My main point is also that the articles consist entirely of plot (WP:NOT; cast lists don't offer analysis). Since no-one seems to be willing to fulfill his burden, I suggested merging over deletion; what is your solution? – sgeureka t•c 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is about providing proof for questionable material, not for establishing notability. Quit trying to wikilawyer your way through this - I didn't start editing yesterday. The point is, it's nobody's burden to add sources. If there's something specific you are questioning, use a tag. These are TV shows, not biographies of living persons, so they don't need to use comprehensive citations. If someone wants to, that's great. There is plenty of coverage from the Guardian, the Independent, and the Telegraph for them to use. But nobody has to add it. Not being sourced is not a reason for deletion, as long as it is verifiable. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added facts to specific instances that I doubt, per your suggestion, and have also added a plot tag (did you read my last comment?) to the pilot episode to stimulate article improvement. Time will tell if that's effective, or if they'll just continue to be ignored to support merging as the better option. – sgeureka t•c 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes (which doesn't have summaries yet). WP:NOTABILITY not established since June 2007(!) (but tags were removed for the pilot in March), the tags of the others were removed in prod attempts and by IPs and no one noticed or did something about it). No OR-free analysis or production info to satisfy WP:NOT and WP:WAF. The lack of episode titles and the existance of the US version make it hard to do a proper search to guess the potential. The pilot episode may have a bit more potential though for obvious reasons. – sgeureka t•c 07:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you are likely aware of WP:ITSNOTABLE, will you provide the sources please? – sgeureka t•c 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Sgeureka. The articles on individual episodes have many problems and do not show why they are notable to have seperate articles.  TJ   Spyke   18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The list article is less notable and also has no references - the supposed solution makes matters worse. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * List of The Office (US TV series) episodes is a featured article so I can't see why the UK list can't be the same.
 * A better example is the article on the [equivalent US episode]. Notice how that has lots of references which establish notability.  The UK original made plenty of impact - that's why it was remade.  Your contention that these episodes are not notable is patently false. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * TJ Spyke didn't make lack of notability an issue but not showing notability. Since no-one so far is willing to add impact information (if it exists for all episodes), why can't the plot summaries as well be covered in the LoE? – sgeureka t•c 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment If the first series is to be kept, can the episode titles be changed to the proper names? The first episode is called Downsize, this is the name given on IMDb. If it has name instead of Episode One I think we should use it. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure - any editor can change the name of an article by moving it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Kafziel and Matthewedwards; also, each of these episodes in the UK first series were templates for the first season of the U.S., German, French, etc. versions of the show. Very likely that with a little work on the part of the people generally involved with wiki'ing The Office, the pages can all be sourced adequately. That's my .02 anyway. JasonDUIUC (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * merge. The article makes no assertion of Notability, lacks serious secondary source citation, and consists of a plot summary, infobox, and cast list. We are not IMDb.ThuranX (talk) 13:59, 19 October 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.