Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)


 * 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), Clear consensus to keep  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles)

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

Quoting User:Sgeureka from Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes: "As for the purpose of wikipedia: if you want to write a sourced not-solely-plot article about an episode, go ahead." The problem is that for all of these episodes, right now, there simply isn't anything written about them beyond the level of TV-Guide plot summaries. Maybe when the DVDs are released, audio commentary will be available, but that time has not yet come Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: A single episode, not yet assessed by time, by culture, by ratings, by anything, and therefore OR, on the one hand, and not notable, on the other.  A list of episodes with a single line or two is permissible at the article for the series, but not a blurb-o-mat per episode.  This is not the Comic Store Guy's blog.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: this show's awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.237.159 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete agreement with the above! --Camaeron (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep episode of notable TV show. --Pixelface (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep episode of a notable TV show. Nomination appears to be an attempt to create of interpret policy and shows bias against recently produced television production. 23skidoo (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * you're suggesting that we lower the bar for recent stuff? maybe you should go read WP:RECENTISM Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per 23skidoo's argument. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've opened up a larger discussion on how we generally deal with new episodes of new or established works over at WT:EPISODE which may help to address articles like this. (Tentatively delete as only one other previous episode, the pilot, has shown notability, I would be willing to give this a pass if a couple more have had it). --M ASEM  18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a plot synopsis w/o any reliably sourced evidence of notability. The notability of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is not relevant to the lack of it in this article.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep episode of a notable TV show. Does this mean we need to start deleting all the Lost, Prison Break, Heroes, etc episodes off? get a life! Jonesy702 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i'd need to look at the articles to make sure, but my suspicion is yes - that most episodes of Lost, Prison Break, Heroes, etc need to be deleted as per wikipedia policy Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which policy is that? --Pixelface (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In lieu of Mr. D's nonreply, although not to speak on his behalf, I would guess he's talking about What Wikipedia is not as I did immediately below. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which says nothing about deletion. The notion that substandard articles should be deleted (rather than improved or merged) is an inference by some users, not a guideline.  It also contradicts WP:GTD, which suggests taking some intermediary steps before nominating an article for deletion. Misterdiscreet does not seem to have contributed to the article, participated on the talk page, or even tagged it before sending it here.  If noncompliance with guidelines is grounds for deletion, by his own argument what do you think should happen to him? Fritter (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:GTD, "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Per my initial comments, I believe this article is, at the moment, a hopeless case. The reasons I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion are (1) there's an injunction in place and (2) I think AfD's provide a better venue for discussion then you'd get if I tagged the article for speedy deletion. Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion that it's a hopeless article, but I don't think it's "obviously" hopeless; indeed a main reason there is an injunction currently preventing deletion is that reasonable people can disagree about how Wikipedia should deal with these types of articles, and consensus has yet to be reached. Fritter (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i cited the relevant wikipedia policies in my initial statement. WP:OR and WP:NOT". Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that the article has more than just a plot summary now. --Pixelface (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article on Wikipedia called Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) does not meet the policies and guidelines dictated by Notability, Reliable Sources, and WP:NOT; being an episode of a notable TV series doesn't exempt it from those requirements.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are suggestions, not requirements. --Pixelface (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and revise. Per WP:FICT a spinout article for an an individual episode may be acceptable if the main article meets notability guidelines, which it does.  The problem with this article is not its existence, but its poor quality.  It relies excessively on the primary source (the show) and has far too much narration. But this only justifies changing it, not deleting it. The story arc of The Sarah Connor Chronicles is too complex to describe in the main article, short of making it very long and growing indefinitely (should the series be renewed, anyway). In addition to actual time travel, there are lots of flashbacks, changing identities, and questionable loyalties of some characters.  Such complexity justifies the spinout articles.  These articles do attract fancruft, but the best solution is to more aggressively revise and delete extraneous content, rather than delete the article itself.  Fritter (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FICT says to consider it a part of the main article, and as such it would pretty much be an excessive detail of plot. That's not to say we can't have any summary of the plot, or that such summary has to be only a few sentences, but this much is too much without real world context. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to a season article (that will require trimming) per my comment above. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your points are well taken. But still: are there examples of high quality season articles for one hour dramas that do not break out into individual episode articles?  I question whether a complex drama can be adequately summarized and kept to NPOV in the small space appropriate for a tabular format.  If the guideline for a plot summary is about 10 words per minute, a one hour drama should be about 450 words (assuming 15 min. of commercials).  WP:EPISODE cites Lost (season 3) as a good season page, but the larger summaries are just over 100 words (and do break out to individual episode articles).  I don't think you can cram much more text in those tables, and 25% of what is needed to summarize the plot is not going to be valuable to many people.  Fritter (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * see List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. some episodes do break out into individual episode articles, but a lot (dare I say most) don't. it's also a featured list Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Fritter (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - violating Arbitration decisions with nominations suggests a severe lack of good judgement on the part of the nominator; probably a good idea to remove all their deletion nominations and keep them from nominating any more for a suitable period of time - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * you assume i knew about the injunction (although i say i didn't nominate the article for speedy deletion because of it, that's a bit of a misnomer - i didn't know about it, but since it's in place, speedy deletion is quite impossible). also, read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  quoting User:Collectonian from Articles for deletion/Hooves and Harlots (Xena episode), "Per the injunction, article can not be physically deleted yet, however it can be AfDed and marked to be deleted after the injunction.".  he doesn't believe it violates the injunction.  what makes your belief that it does so much more right?  in any event, if that's what you believe, go discuss it on Template talk:FICTWARN - not here.  as is, since your reason doesn't have anything to do with this article, your vote should be disqualified per WP:JUSTAVOTE Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No substantive reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No substantive reasoning from the nomination, or inclusive all the subsequent comments to the same effect? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Excessive WP:PLOT violation and no evidence of notability through reliable third-party sources. Episodes are not exempt from the notability guidelines nor is notability inherited from the collective series. Ideally, these episodes should be covered by a list of episodes article with short, concise summaries. --Farix (Talk) 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take another look at the article now. --Pixelface (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I started a Reception section to get the ball rolling. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep IF the article can get just a couple more sources for the reception section (or any other section). Discussion in the New York Post is a good sign. If the sources aren't found then merge it into the list of episodes. Bill (talk 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied now that more sources have been added. Keep. Bill (talk 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ARTICLE HAS BEEN REVISED March 12 2008. Please reconsider before deleting. It is now much shorter and cites more references.  Not the most notable article on Wikipedia but better than before.  I reiterate my position that articles should be challenged and revised when substandard.   Fritter (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The new revision is great. Why delete this page for NO reason. There are thousands of other episode articles much worse than this one. As said before, look at Heroes, Prison Break and sometimes even LOST; most of the episode articles are crap, but they are kept. This one should only be deleted when they are deleted.  Corn.u.co.pia'''  Discussion  07:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The plot is still too much OR and I'm still not convinced of the episodes notability. Sources, alone, are not sufficient.  See, for example, Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run.


 * As for the rest of your post... see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  I'd delete almost all of Heroes, Prison Break, and LOST if I had the time.  I don't.  And, of course, I can't episode one episode one by one, using your logic, because the episodes I didn't nominate would always serve as precedent to keep (using your logic).  So, I'd have to nominate them all at once.  Do you know how long that'd take?  Probably several 10's of hours of continuous editing.  If that's your bar for getting stuff deleted, nothing is ever gong to be deleted Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I see how my logic is pretty stupid, but I do believe in it. Anyways I see your point of view on the issue, but give the article time! Later on we can add more reviews, filming and stuff like that. But that info isn't released yet. Please, just give the article time.  Corn.u.co.pia'''  Discussion  12:42, 12 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.