Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls)


 * 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  k eep all and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

French Twist (Gilmore Girls)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These articles fail the Wikipedia policy located at WP:NOT which states: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." This article consists of nothing but a plot summary. Wikification, and the addition of one line of context would not address this issue. Salad Days 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from this same violation of wikipedia official policy:


 * Delete All per nom. I understand that there is a movement to establish guidelines for summarizing individual episodes of programs or entire seasons. Until such a guidelines is established, these articles should not be written and are merely nn fancruft. Soltak | Talk 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. These articles need expansion and clean-up, but I fail to see why these articles should have less right to exist on Wikipedia than the hundreds of individual episode articles already in place for other series. The nom's rationale would pretty well disqualify 99% of episode articles, in which case I recommend the nominator make a policy change suggestion rather than singling out one show. The consenus at WP:EPISODE doesn't appear to have been violated, though the articles can be improved, of course. 23skidoo 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I am not interested in changing existing policy, merely the enforcement of the ones we currently have. I would also like to point out that WP:EPISODE which you referenced, states that "Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles." These articles contain no references or independently verifiable information. Salad Days 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The episode is the primary source (self-ref) and is verifiable, if you want more references then tag it for them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So the episodes of all television shows are themselves the reference, and thus all are worthy of inclusion? Why doesn't the essay simply say that then? Salad Days 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously because it's a felgercarb essay that needs re-writing :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: So, then nominate all those for deletion, too. What's the problem? Netuser500 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Your Cheatin' Heart (Phil of the Future episode) - Kept!
 * Articles for deletion/Pilot (The Nanny) - Kept!
 * Would be blatant point making if he did try. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep all - I see no indiscriminate information, the pages need expansion and cleaning (not reason for deletion) - Episodes are from a (very?) notable American television series. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Normal television episode pages. They're inheritantly notable, they just need some work. - Peregrine Fisher 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes them inherently notable? Soltak | Talk 00:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the word was pretty obvious my self.. but: they "inherit" the shows notability, the show is watched by 4mil+ (that episode alone) - clearly *notable*! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As "inheritantly" isn't a word, I had absolutely no idea what the author was talking about. I was under the impression that they had simply misspelled "inherently". Furthermore, the notion that things inherit notability is not an accurate one. If my father won an Academy Aware it doesn't make me notable. Similarly, if I'm a US Senator, it doesn't make my daughter notable. Soltak | Talk 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I write that keep? no. - also I hate lame straw man arguments.. there so.. redundant.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether you wrote it or not is not relevant (though I don't claim that you did) as you responded to defend it. Further, I'd recommend that you take a look at WP:CIVIL as well as a grammar aid so that next time you attack someone you can do it with the appropriate form of there/they're. Soltak | Talk 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you did - You just changed it while I was replying. Also I won't do you the honour od replying to your grammar request. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all per Soltak. Netuser500 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite - Xornok 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the fact that an article still requires more work is no reason to delete it. There is no timetable on when an article should be in a certain wikipedia acceptable style either. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand that they need some tuning and fixing but deleting would be going in the wrong direction since many television shows have individual episode articles. If the episode article is grammatically correct and well written, free of errors and fancruft and there are no copyright violations or plagiarism then a definite keep. Why should the Gilmore Girls be treated any differently? Sfufan2005 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These articles are not grammatically correct and well written. Did you bother to read them? I am personally not treating these articles any differently than I would those of any other program, these simply happen to be the ones I have nominated. No one has yet addressed the fact that current policy states that "Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries." Salad Days 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP *sigh* ... here we go again. For the sake of preserving all TV articles, it's pop culture and I vote the articles deserve to stay but yes, they should be written more appropriately within Wikipedia guidelines. Fix what is needed and give it a chance. Believe it or not, a lot of users use this place to stay on top of their favorite shows and if it wasn't for Wikipedia being a mecca for even the most trivial information from Atari games to Xenu no one would come to this place. Cyberia23 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously need to read WP:NOT. Netuser500 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, Yeah I've read it, many times in fact I have a link to it on my talkpage, and I still don't see where it says TV show articles aren't allowed. Cyberia23 08:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem with WP:NOT is it is often countermanded by Wikipedia is not paper. In any event, in terms of quality content and presentation all I see are cases for WP:BOLD. 23skidoo 03:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article requiring work is not a reason for deletion. Tag for clean up and expansion instead. Jay32183 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was not nominated for deletion because it requires work. Could you please re-read the nomination. Salad Days 06:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem was that the article only contains plot. This is a request for expansion. Wanting the development and reception discussed would be a request for work to be done. The information does exist, it just hasn't been supplied. Deleting the article is not an acceptable solution. Jay32183 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Some cleanup is required, but these articles aren't nearly as bad as the other Gilmore Girls episodes nominated today. Wiki is not paper. BryanG(talk) 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. All television shows deserve a summary and commentary. And thanks for the new eggcorn. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Excuse me, Salad Days. But I never said that the episode articles were well written and contain no errors. There was an "IF" before that. And please do not lecture me on not reading them since I read everything on the pages and all of the comments. The articles need to be expanded with some more material. Instead of nominating these articles for deletion why not you help by adding things you're talking about to better the articles. Unless you have a stance against TV show episodes having their own articles than that's a different story. Sfufan2005 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOT is policy.  The current versions of the articles violate that policy, and there is no sign of non-trivial independent reliable sources that we could use to rewrite or expand the articles.  Pan Dan 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've tried pointing that out in other AfDs, but all you seem to need are three dedicated fans to prevent nn cruft from being deleted. It makes me wonder whether trying to improve Wikipedia is worth the effort. Netuser500 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Episodes of nationally broadcast television shows are generally in the keep book, if the quality of these articles is poor, rewrite them. I can't, however, support a deletion on principle, because  I feel Wikipedia should have information on each episode of this show.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This AFD is trying to make a point, at best. Cburnett 21:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Cburnett, this nom is trying to make a point. Much work can (and needs to be) done in order to improve the articles, but it's not a reason they should be deleted. Also, can't see any vioation of WP:EPISODE, hence my vote. Gimlei 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Episode articles should not be a default, and I seriously doubt any episode from this show has individual notable impact on the real world (maybe the series as a whole, but not on an episode-by-episode basis). I don't know what the nom's motivation is, but this is clearly a violation of WP:NOT, that much is true. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what I don't understand. Won't it be harder to add real-world context, sourced analysis, work's achievement, impact, and/or historical significance when, you know, the article is deleted?  Consider this: someone who is willing to do the work on the articles might not if they have to recreate the article, write some plot, add the cats, add the infobox, etc.  Cburnett 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, Ned, that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, 4.4 million viewers seems to be very notable to me and that is just the USA, and they definitely have a cultural impact. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dudes, it's Gilmore Girls.... I mean... come on.. -- Ned Scott 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all per longstanding consensus that seems unlikely to shift anytime soon regarding television episodes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no consensus regarding TV episodes. Anyway, WP:NOT is both consensus and policy.  Pan Dan 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does not appear to reflect AfD operation. That's a discussion for there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. WP:NOT is widely cited in AfD discussions as a reason to delete.  Pan Dan 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is not a collection of things to delete, it is a reminder of the goals of Wikipedia. The consensus mentioned earlier is at WP:EPISODE. Although third party sources are preferrable for notability and opinion, first party sources are perfectly acceptable for basic information. I have no way of checking myself in this case, but many television episodes when released on DVD have writers' and directors' commentaries that can be used to write about the development of the indivdual episode. A lack of web sites is not in itself a reason to delete an article. Jay32183 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even WP:EPISODE, which is neither a guideline nor a policy, requires "independently verifiable" sources. An article based on writers' and directors' commentaries (whose present or future existence is entirely speculative on your part) would fail to satisfy WP:EPISODE as well as WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  Pan Dan 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read the line "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)." If the article is only plot summary with no interpretation then the article contains no original research and is verifiable by anyone willing to watch the episode. By the way, the fact that a consensus is not marked as a guideline or policy is no reason to ignore it. Jay32183 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy says "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not)...Articles and text which are capable of meeting these should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia...is usually deleted." Sorry to resort to quoting policy, but it seems to me it should be obvious that WP:NOT is a perfectly valid reason for deletion that can't be trumped by any guideline, and certainly not any centralized discussion page.  Pan Dan 10:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is also a reason to keep this article, if you want it deleted then provide some valid reasoning. HTH DNHAND. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those unconstructive comments. Now go sit in the corner for 5 minutes.  After you do that, read the nom again.  After you do that, look for appropriate sources to back up your keep vote (yes you can look for sources even though you don't watch the show as you said below).  Pan Dan 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But the article does not fail inclusion criteria, significant editting would make the article meet all of the criteria. Based on what you just said this article should not be deleted but should be editted as we've been suggesting. Your own argument is actually a reason to keep this article, not delete it. Jay32183 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Starting to repeat myself again, as I did in the thread below, so this'll be my last comment for this thread.) "Significant editing" that will make these articles pass WP:NOT is not possible without sources.  Pan Dan 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There was at least one valid third party source on Matthew's list, TV Guide can be used to ref the original airdate. Until you find that there is no dvd commentary to write a development section, do not call it impossible. Besides, there are two acceptable options here, delete is not one of them. They are "clean up and expand" and "merge and redirect", both of which point to avoiding afd. A decision of delete here would set a very bad precendent. Jay32183 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Say what? A director's commentary is about as primary as I think you get.  As for WP:NPOV: do you understand what that really means?  NPOV does not mean exclusion of a particular point of view.  NPOV is that no particular point of view dominates others.  Just because the director is, well, the director does not make him so biased that his knowledge can be excluded.  NPOV means the director's commentary is in as well as anyone else of reliability (if that's a word).  WP:V is the key. Cburnett 01:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Invitation to everyone in this discussion who believes it is possible for these articles to improve: please look for independent, reliable sources that we could use to add real-world context and sourced analysis to the article without violating WP:OR. (E.g. I did a full-text Lexis-Nexis search for "gilmore girls" "french twist", and "gilmore girls" "go, bulldogs".  No results.)  Pan Dan 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * o rly? I only get 160 thousand results, operative word: only  thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good first step. Now, which of those hits, that are reliable and independent of the show's producers&distributors, can we use to give real-world context and sourced analysis to these articles?  (Note: My zero results were in Lexis-Nexis, not Google)  Pan Dan 19:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Use a real search engine then, and I wouldn't have the foggiest, never seen the show, probably never will (-: -- you're welcome to improve the article if you wish though, So say we all! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Starting to repeat repeat myself, so this'll probably be my last comment, but the point is that it's likely not possible to improve the articles without conducting OR. The kind of sources we'd need for a Wikipedia article are, for example, reviews of the specific episodes by independent critics.  Just because something has lots of Google hits, doesn't mean that any of those hits are suitable as sources for these articles.  That's why I used Lexis-Nexis -- wading through Google hits is a drag.  But anyway, looking through the first few pages of these 17,600 Google hits, I see unreliable sources that discuss only plot summaries.  Nothing that we could use here.  (By the way, not that it matters, but there aren't 160,000 hits; you didn't use quotes in your search.  Pan Dan 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to see Jimbo Wales' reply on this subject. Salad Days 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I vote keep Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:09, 2 February 2007 (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.