Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Whisperer episodes


 * 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 delete all and redirect. There is clear consensus the articles should not be retained. The decision is whether to merge or to delete. Given the lack of sourcing raised by a number of editors, merging such content would violate WP:V, and so deletion is appropriate. Neil  ☎  12:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ghost Whisperer episodes


Episodes from a TV show, looking at List of Ghost Whisperer episodes most episodes are redliniked. Fails WP:NOTE. The episodes have had Notability on them for a while. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to show Like songs from an album, individual episodes that lack individual commentary lack THUS lack individual notability. There is no evidence that these episodes have been individual subjects of individual commentary, and thus should all redirect back to the TV show in question.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, where the relevant broadcast information and plot summary is located. De-link all episode names in this article. -- saberwyn 05:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing here worth saving. Leave redirects as others have suggested, if the list of a bunch of non-notable episodes is notable. -- Mikeblas 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The Episode coverage Task Force in WikiProject Television has been informed of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all I love Jennifer Love-Hewitt, and I enjoy the Ghost Whisperer. However, I strongly believe that articles about individual episodes of any television series do not belong on Wikipedia.  Yes, I know, there are tons of such articles.  And they're all original research, tolerated only because Wikipedia took what it could get when it was starting up.  Episode summaries belong somewhere else on the Internet. Mandsford 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep': This is good information that should be kept for those interested in the subject or the curious. It can be easily verified by watching the show. Why must they be moved "somewhere" else. The only reason I like wikipedia is that it is an "all in one" source of knowledge, if you start just deleting useful information then wikipedia's overall value has gone down and people are more likely to just look elsewhere where they can actually find the information they want. --MacGyver07 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Should be put in the main episode guide. Why delete it. This show is extremely popular. That in itself makes it notable. scope_creep 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:NOTE. It does not make it notable. Significant coverage by independant sources does. These articles lack this. i (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to a list of episodes page. Articles contain little more than a plot summary (WP:NOT) with no critical commentary and a collection of unsourced trivia and quotes. Quotes sections would be better moved to Wikiquote. I would accept keeping the pilot episode (as they typicallly have the best chance of establishing notability) if someone agreed to look for sources, but my initial search turned up very little usable info. Stardust8212 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all No evidence of sources beyond the plot itself. No prejudice against creating new redirects if they are deemed appropriate. Jay32183 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they should be merged and then deleted as making them redirects is useless; I doubt anyone would search for a specific article title. However, the history needs to be left so that editors who care and are knowledgeable are able to merge to the LOE page. So just redirect them. i (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The list of episodes is overly detailed as it is, merging would make things worse. Also, writing plot from source material is incredibly easy so merging is fairly pointless anyway. Jay32183 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, or if that's impossible, merge in some way so as to preserve the information contained on the individual pages. I think it's ridiculous to continually destroy information that a sizable community of people may find interesting and relevant. –Kadin2048 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Burn every single one of them in the deepest pits of the underworld — these articles completely fail to meet WP:V (making everything there original research), as well as WP:NOTABLE. There's no need to merge anything, as the information is unreliable and unreferenced; merging it with the list of episodes would make the list even worse. -- Agüeybaná  21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Merge the summaries into the main list, shortened if necessary. None stand alone enough to meet WP:Notable guidelines and, in general, individual episodes of a show do not need whole articles.  As otehrs have noted, the "extra" info is unreferenced or goes against the no trivia ideals. Collectonian 04:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or redirect to List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, like it says to do in the guidelines (WP:EPISODE and WP:N), and please stop bringing episode articles for notable television series to AfD. DHowell 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the condition of the episode list, merging is not an option. Jay32183 00:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not let the editors of the episode list decide whether that is an option? Besides even if it were true that merging isn't an option, the WP:EPISODE guideline says to redirect, not delete. DHowell 07:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging is a bad idea, the episode list needs trimming. I'm not against a redirect existing, but preserving the article history just to keep people from whining is stupid. Articles that go through AFD are not automatically salted so a new redirect can be created after the deletion. The redirect solution in WP:EPISODE is really to try to avoid AFDs because they can end up very heated. Since we're already at AFD, delete should be considered an option. Jay32183 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What purpose is served by deleting the article histories? And how exactly is characterizing the opinions of people you disagree with as "whining" and "stupid" a civil way of behaving in a collaborative project based on consensus? DHowell 07:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Every relevant policy and guideline indicates that these pages never should have existed in the first place. There is no reason to preserve the history while getting rid of the article, that just doesn't make sense. It is not an act of incivility to point out that people who insist on not making sense are whining to get their way. "Stupid" could be uncivil, if directed at a person. I, however, directed that comment at a behavior. The fact the Wikipedia is a consensus driven project doesn't create a reason to preserve work that shouldn't be a part of it. We aren't trying to placate people who waste their efforts doing work we neither need nor want. There is absolutely no reason to preserve the edit history if we aren't preserving any content. Jay32183 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Every relevant policy and guideline says that we can fix these types of articles by merging or improving, not by deleting. There is no reason to delete the article history when making a redirect, that just doesn't make sense. (Even vandalism is preserved in article histories, and this content is far from vandalism). Can I assume you will not consider it an act of incivility to point out that your insisting on deleting material for no sensible reason looks like whining to get your way? "Doesn't make sense to User:Jay32183" is not a valid reason for deletion. Read WP:CIVIL again, it doesn't apply exclusively to personal attacks; calling a person's ideas stupid can be just as incivil as calling the person stupid. It is the consensus of editors, not just you, personally pretending to speak on behalf of "we", that decides what work is to be a part of Wikipedia and what work we need or want. Even the WP:NOT policy says that some of this content "may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic" and as such can be useful for a future editor who finds more independent reliable source material to establish notability, or who wishes to incorporate some of this content in another article. There are several reasons to preserve this content for other editors, but you really haven't given one good reason to eradicate the content entirely from history. DHowell 08:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources for anything other than plot, improvement is impossible. The episode is overly detailed, merging is impossible. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You don't make an article without sources and hope sources show up later. Existing articles retain every edit in their histories for copyright purposes. If there is no article, there are no copyright issues. Again, I called a behavior stupid, not an idea. The behavior of trying to retain an article history to placate editors who are having their articles removed is stupid and should always be avoided. When there are no appropriate sources, completely eradicating the content is the only option. Existing policies and guidelines have an existing consensus, and a single AFD is too limited a discussion to disregard that entirely. You shouldn't feel upset if an AFD closes in delete when you know the article fails all relevant policies. You can't save everything, and it's a waste of time to try. Jay32183 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you've done an exhaustive search and determined that no reliable sources exist, or would ever exist for any of these episodes? We have far more detailed articles, based on reliables sources, for episodes of other television series, so I'm not sure how you can be so confident about this. You're distinction between "behavior" and "idea" is pretty irrelevant, and I still don't see how calling either one "stupid" is civil. And, yes policies and guidelines may have an existing consensus, but it is those very policies and guidelines which you ignore in order to press for the deletion of harmless historical content. We have guidelines to "placate editors" because it is better in the spirit of consensus and community to do so when there is no harm in doing so. Wikipedia is not a battleground. "Completely eradicating the content is" not "the only option," as we have hundreds if not thousands of redirects with article histories containing content both potentially useful and completely useless, and no one is going around demanding deletion of all of those histories. Only because these articles happened to be brought to AfD (against guidelines) do you seem to be vociferously arguing for the deletion of these particular article histories. DHowell 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding "You don't make an article without sources and hope sources show up later": Maybe you don't, but Jimbo does, and that's the way Wikipedia generally worked before people started demanding that all articles which are not fully compliant with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines from day one be deleted on sight. DHowell 04:27, 6 November 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.