Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Arrow (Arrow 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Green Arrow (Arrow episode)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Even though this articles has sources (just episode reviews), there is nothing about it that makes it notable based on the information provided in the article. Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, i'm confused, the article has 6 reviews, more than enough to meet WP:GNG, are you saying that none of these are reliable or is it that they do not specifically look at this episode but the series as a whole? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Episode articles should generally have more content than plot summary and reviews for the episode. Considering that the only other episode for Arrow to have an article is the pilot, this brings into further question the purpose of this article. In my eyes, the users just wanted to create the article for the sake of creating it, not because there were some notable elements surrounding it, be it on the production side, or critical commentary (again outside of the general reviews each episode gets each week). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd probably redirect over delete, but Favre is right...having some reviews is not enough to satisfy creating an article that is being used mostly as a giant plot summary. There is nothing justifying the existence of this page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine redirecting, but figured if the redirect existed, it might "encourage" IPs or other users to try and recreate the article, knowing the redirect exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm an episode article fanatic, but agree that this is just lead, plot, crew and reviews. Throw in more production notes, sound bite the reviews, and I might change my vote. —  Wylie pedia  19:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Reviews are sufficient to meet GNG and this one has plenty. Other info is nice to have, but we don't delete notable articles just because they aren't yet all that they can be. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's the point . There isn't any other info for this episode. As has been stated, it is lacking the "notability" beyond the reviews all episode gets to warrant it being kept. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's where you're wrong. If there are 2 independent, RS reviews, then the WP:GNG is met, and there's no cause for deletion.  Don't let the perfect (reception, filming, locations, etc.) be the enemy of the good. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a WikiProject Television contributor, this is what we go by. Articlewise, "Green Arrow" barely meets those standards. —  Wylie pedia  06:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Comment should the consensus deem this be kept, then the best course of action would be to make the article a redirect at this time, per all the reasons I have been stating above, and for CAWylie also pointing out how this "barely meets [the TV MOS] standards." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep there appears to be plenty of secondary coverage of this episode. Agree with arguments made by the other "Keep" voters. LAroboGuy (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as not only is this seeming to be the consensus, there's enough to at least suggest minimal convincing; we can however later consider redirecting when and if the time comes. SwisterTwister   talk  17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:MOSTV. It's well-referenced and includes additional details beyond just plot. Coderzombie (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2016 (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.