Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)


 * 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, no prejudice against proposing a merger to a list, but that's for the talkpages. No consensus to delete at this point. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)

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

Unnotable episode of Xena: Warrior Princess that fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. As per the arbcom injunction, AfD can proceed normally, but must wait for any actual deletion/merge/redirect (if that is the final choice) to be done after the injunction is lifted. Collectonian (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —Collectonian (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep delete  fails WP:EPISODE but passes WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as this is just not that uncommon a thing to see here, and may not be bad if the article is well-written (this one isn't). JJL (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you already know this can't be closed until the injunction is over why add to the number of afd's that have to be carried over indefinately? Why not make a note of it and list later.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If fact I say Speedy Keep per bad faith nom.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That may seem a little harsh, but I see no point to this. If someone is unaware of the arbcom injunction, fine let it float.  But what's the point of adding to the glut when you know there can be no resolution?--Cube lurker (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing bad faith about it and your assumption of bad faith is unwarranted. The ArbCom case was supposed to close yesterday, so the injunction should be lifted before this one ends. I simply made the note because if you don't, people complain. The arb com injunction is not a valid reason for a keep and is no reason to stop the discussion. Collectonian (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you proide a diff that the injunction ends tomorrow? Looking at the page i see it sitting at 4-1 to close, but i admit I may be missing somehing.  If the injunction does lift tomorrow i'll sincerely appologize and strike all mu comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)******Or soon, misread yesterday for tomorrow.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The one oppose was for 1-2 days, which have since passed, so it should be at 4 net votes. I've left a message with the clerk about it. Still, at this point, I think its safe to say that since an AfD should last at least 5 days, it is highly probably the injunction will be gone before this ends, regardless of the decision. Collectonian (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe i'm wrong, but i thought +4 was to accept a case, but a close needs a majority of active arbitors which is 7.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For this one, it says net 4, so support - oppose would be net. Collectonian (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving to user page--Cube lurker (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Collectonian. Wikipedia has 2,270,000+ articles, and if you took out the TV episode and TV character nonsense, it would probably be less than 2,000,000; and I sometimes think that the temporary ArbComm injunction will stay in effect permanently.  Perhaps I exaggerate.  What good is an encyclopedia that doesn't have articles about Season 3, Episode 13 of "Murphy Brown" and biographies of "Buddy Hinton" (Brady Bunch fans know who I'm talking about)?   Mandsford (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per further info I apologize for the bad faith comment. I'm now neutral, but right or wrong i believe the nom to be in good faith.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And i've tried to get the spacing fixed but it won't stinking work, feel free to fix.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Strike tags need to begin to the right of asterixes, or the indent doesn't work. For the post-struck comments, an extra asterix had appeared in the indenting, causing the gap before the last few. (I assume this is the spacing you were mildly annoyed about, not something in the article)-- saberwyn 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've learned 2-3 things today, thank's much.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:EPISODE. Episode is unremarkable and has no "achievements, impact or historical significance" to discuss.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Merge in the usual way to a list of episodes, and close this discussion. articles which can be merged instead of deleted should not be nominated for deletion.DGG (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already covered in List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes with a summary. Collectonian (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That list just has one sentence, Xena and Gabrielle join forces with Joxer and Orpheus to defeat Bacchus, who is transforming innocent girls into deadly monsters.. This is a pathetic summary of an episode which has received extensive coverage in secondary sources and which is especially notable in illustrating Xena and Gabrielle's lesbian relationship.  It's a good example of how obsessive listification is quite wrong. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its the same once sentence used for the first synopsis on that article. I will conceded, however, that the Xena episode list is in pathetic shape, but that is not an excuse to create another article rather than actually fix the list. Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The episode is notable and I have added three citations to demonstrate this. Note that the overt lesbian theme is especially notable.  Note also that WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT are disputed. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A citation to note it is episode X or to confirm the plot does NOT establish notability. The "overt lesbian theme" is an aspect of the series as a whole and covered elsewhere. WP:FICT has been re-written, and the primary aspect in dispute at this point seems to be the issue of relocating the material that doesn't meet the guidelines and if Wikia should be mentioned. Collectonian (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not accept any of these points. This is a notable episode of a highly notable TV series.  It merits good coverage here and all that is required is further cleanup and development. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Catchpole (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:EPISODE; notable episode title from a notable series that is well-organized and referenced. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the one sourced sentence into List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes, then redirect. The rest is just excessive plot retelling (WP:NOT). No prejudice against recreation if significant real-world information is added like for production and reception so that the article either passes WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE. – sgeureka t•c 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added three cites for at least three sentences so it seems that you haven't read this article. The article that you want to merge it to has just one sentence about this topic and has no sources for this or any of the other episodes that it purports to cover.  Your preference for a list format is contrary to our best practise which clearly favour prose articles over tabular laundry lists.  Colonel Warden (talk)
 * I have read the three sourced sentences and skimmed over the rest of the article, so what I should have said is merge the one sourced nontrivial sentence and redirect the rest. Generally, I find it easier and faster to come up with three new sentences to expand the LoE than to read the article for 15 minutes to find three mergeable plot sentences. YMMV. – sgeureka t•c 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive my ignorance in this case, but what does LoE and YMMV mean? Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * YMMV = Your mileage may vary. LoE = List of Episodes. – sgeureka t•c 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Sincerley, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, one citation might be expected to support one paragraph in a good article. So, three citations, such as I provided, would support three paragraphs.  sgeureka's proposition is to try to reduce the material down to sentences rather than paragraphs and this seems to be just so that he can cram it into a tabular form.  Form would be dictating the content in a non-encyclopedic way and so this proposition seems contrary to our best practise. Wikipedia is not a Book of Lists. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One source confirms that this ep is is the fourth ep of this show (extremely trivial). One sentence confirms the premise of the episode (trivial, could have looked that up on IMDb). One sentence confirms a theme (nontrivial). The rest is originally research plot, which per WP:NOT would be fine to some extend if there was significant analysis or other real-world content in the article. But there isn't. So we don't need 30 plot sentences (I haven't counted) to support one short theme sentence. So we can lose the 30 sentences. Voilà, the article is so stubby that it can fit in the LoE. Now, if this episode was nominated for/won a major award, or if the sources expanded a little bit on non-trivial things, I'd be happy to strike my recommendation, but until this happens, I see merge/redirection as the best option. No prejudice against article recreation if more (one or two medium paragraphs) non-trivial real-world information surfaces. – sgeureka t•c 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You fail to demonstrate how deletion assists such content editing. Your proposal is contrary to normal practise in which stubby material is expanded and developed rather than contracted. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose for the content to be deleted; redirection allows for recreation. I am merely saying the current content is completely inappropriate, and should therefore be removed until the time comes that it actually serves to support real-world content, not the other way around. (See WP:FICT and WP:WAF what is considered appropriate practise.) – sgeureka t•c 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — a non-notable plot-vio. Mandsford's comment is spot-on, although he estimates to the number of such articles on the low side. I've seen 'em Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So your comment is just based upon an agenda of systematically removing TV material from this encyclopedia. Despite the merits of the material or despite the fact that such material is encyclopedic. Right? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information; i.e. we do discriminate against some information; examples include non-notable subjects, plot summary, and trivia. Can you hear me now? --Jack Merridew 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic is notable, as the citations show. It is not indiscrimiate having a specific focus.  Plot summary is absolutely essential as an article upon a fictional item wuld be absurd without it.  Trivia is in the eye of the beholder and so that's just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is all your objections amount to. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, episode of a notable TV show. --Pixelface (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And the difference that makes is? Black Kite 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just added another cite in the course of restoring material which Jack removed in ignorance of its significance. I haven't watched this episode myself but understand that the material should be treated with respect rather than contempt.  And I find that it is not hard to explain, source and develop.  It's disgraceful that nay-sayers should instead try to belittle and sabotage the article in pursuit of their hostile and negative agenda.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * mere trivia. --Jack Merridew 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * so-called trivia is encyclopedic too and per the Five Pillars is valid content. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to LOE - aspires to nothing more than trivia and an overly long plot summary. The "sourced" material is also largely trivial, per sgeureka's comment above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The aspiration of the original editor is unclear since they have not responded - we only seem to have the usual suspects here. Myself, I aspire to develop the article into a study of the episode's groundbreaking lesbianism and its effects upon the show's fans for which I've seen some promising material out there. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you respond to this comment too? Eusebeus (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he likes the saw-toothed look of the indenting ;-) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article needs clean up not deletion. - Jahnx ( talk ) 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, delete any guidelines that contradict this result if you must delete something. The guidelines are just being wishful thinking proscriptive instead of prescriptive anyways. - 05:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment An appropriate project tag has been added and Peregrine Fisher has added some good material including an award. I have started working through the plot summary which seems to be a poor translation, using terms like dríades, instead of dryad. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notability clearly established. Tim! (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge - content is viable, even if not as its own article, and deletion would be sub-optimal. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:01, 15 March 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.