Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From a Whisper to a Scream


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

From a Whisper to a Scream

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Same problems as Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references.  Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, episode features an Emmy-nominated performance, which should be easy enough to source.  bd2412  T 21:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare Eric McCormack's win of his emmy nomination for Lows in the Mid-Eighties, yet the article is not notable. I don't see how a emmy nomination makes an episode notable.Curb Chain (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it results in additional coverage for the episode; it marks the episode as being in some way special - i.e., notable - relative to non-nominated episodes; because it results in additional information to provide in the article, e.g., why it was nominated, etc. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But you haven't explained why a emmy nomination in this particular show confers notability, when other emmy nominated episodes of other shows do not.Curb Chain (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes a minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article fully. But in this particular case it is absolutely clear that the nom did not even read the first paragraph of the article, because of the Emmy nomination--there is real out of universe content here. I knew they were caelss, but not this careless. Proof, therefore, that  these nomination  disruptively   frustrate  not the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable, but are so recklessly done as to impair the role of AfD and discourage proper discussion. I was wondering which article would make the best case for saying that such nomination do not meet my standard of responsible work here, but this is the one. I think honest work would call for the nom to be retracted.  DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 
 * Keep and condense the plot section, which is in too much detail. . The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Emmy nomination at least.-- Stv Fett erly  (Edits)  17:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think an emmy nomination makes something notable, as my above comment.Curb Chain (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you mention the emmy nomination in your AfD nomination? The nomination simply says "Same problems as Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."  That prior Afd garnered one vote in two weeks of being listed, its hardly a precedent of note.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • hasspoken  14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There may be some question about the notability of some of the many Grey's Anatomy nominations, but the Emmy nomination clinches this as a keep for me. Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep—Emmy nod is notable. Trim the plot section to a paragraph though.   See also my comments at Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:41, 17 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.