Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey La, Hey La, My Ex-Boyfriend's Back


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. I suggest that editors involved try to stay a bit more cool next time and WP:STOPYELLINGABOUTACRONYMSANDGOFORAWALK. --Wafulz 02:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey La, Hey La, My Ex-Boyfriend's Back

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

NN episode of a television comedy. No secondary sources, no particular indication that this episode is notable in any way at all. Lankiveil 23:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Evidence of notability provided, nomination withdrawn for now. Lankiveil 10:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment Every other episode of this show seems to have an article; why is this one singled out? -- Charlene 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, quite a few of them could probably be deleted. I simply hit upon this one using the "Random Article" feature.  Lankiveil 02:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment Another one of your counter-productive noms. It's pointless to nominate every single stub of every single tv show episode. This one isn't even actively edited, it hasn't been updated in 2 years. When you found the article you should have done the merge and redirect yourself. Some of the nominations in AFD are actually controversial and therefore worth discussing. This one isn't. &mdash; Sandtiger  03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've nominated a grand total of two TV episode articles, so I'm not quite sure where the vitriol is coming from. If you've got a problem with the nominations, I invite you to leave a comment on my talk page.  Lankiveil 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge this and all the rest of the season 2 episodes into a single List of Will & Grace season 2 episodes article per WP:EPISODE. If no one wants to put the work into doing that, then Keep. Otto4711 06:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete merging is not reasonable in this case since the article contains almost no information. WP:EPISODE is not deletion protection, it should be used to prevent the indivdual episode articles from being created for every episode of every series and allow independantly notable ones to exist. Please remember that merge does not mean turn article into a redirect so the article is no longer there but the history still exists, it means copy some information into another article. Jay32183 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, so merge and redirect to a single seasonal article (sorry I left out the words "and redirect" the first time; I forgot that what's painfully obvious to some is over the heads of others). I never suggested that WP:EPISODE is a bar to deletion. It does say, however, that when dealing with problem articles to consider a merge and/or redirect. If it's truly so bothersome to have this or other W&G episode articles then creating a season-spanning article and merging and redirecting the smaller episode articles is a perfectly reasonable solution. Otto4711 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is really nothing that can prevent people from creating articles about their favorite TV show. WP:EPISODE is a guideline, not a policy, so people can quote it all they want but it is never sufficient in itself to cause a successful deletion. I've read the arguments on Wikipedia talk:Television episodes and even asked a question myself about specific inclusion/exclusion parameters for TV shows and there really isn't any clear consensus.


 * Personally, I don't think having all these stubs is hurting Wikipedia. Newcomers see separate articles on every other TV show episode so they naturally assume that it's OK to create new ones. It's not always easy to BE BOLD, and creating a new article is an easy way for them to get involved in editing without worrying about messing up someone else's article. And I say if this attracts more people into Wikipedia then I'm all for it. I know a lot of people who are now actively editing science-related articles who first came to Wikipedia to read up on their favorite TV show.


 * And finally, why target this one? How about the many, many articles on episodes of the simpsons, firefly, buffy the vampire slayer, star trek, etc. Most of them are no more notable than this. This just fuels Wikipedia's systematic bias.— Sandtiger  00:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first off we're discussing this one and this one alone right now. It doesn't matter why, but we are. The fact that other articles need to be deleted is never a reason to keep something. This stub article does not help achieve any of the goals of Wikipedia. It is at best fan guide material and preserving the edit history is harmful because it suggests to new users that they should create pages like this. We want to discourage this type of page creation, which is why we should delete them so harshly. Failing the notabilty guidelines, which this article does, is a great reason for deletion, especially if no one is working to improve the article. Stubs are a starting point, not a goal. Jay32183 00:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, what exactly is your evidence that this episode of W&G fails WP:N and even if it does, why should the general guideline WP:N override the guideline that specifically addresses this sort of article, WP:EPISODE and why should the portion of WP:N that suggests merging instead of deleting be disregarded? Otto4711 00:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I'm hating myself now. I'm really not defending this article; as I said earlier it's moot to have this discussion. But the point I was making is that the only reason this article is being nominated is because it doesn't appeal to Wikipedia's predominantly geek-oriented populace.
 * What's wrong with stubs? What's wrong with merging? WP:EPISODE itself says stubs are allowed. It also says it's okay to merge.Why should you be concerned about the edit history?
 * We want to discourage this type of page creation, which is why we should delete them so harshly. Says who? Here's |a quote from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales:
 * "Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.
 * I agree with this one completely. --Jimbo Wales"
 * My stance is if you can't fix article yourself, then this afd nom is just noise. Stop complaining about every stub and leave AFD to actual topics that are worth discussing.— Sandtiger  00:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting delete for hard drive concerns, that's stupid. I'm saying delete because this is a bad article that can never be a good article. I do not need evidence to show that this fails notability guidelines, anyone wishing to keep the article needs to show that it passes. Based on the arguments your presenting, nothing would ever get deleted. The point as was making about merge not meaning redirect was not that redirect needed to be specified, but that merge shouldn't happen because there isn't any information to copy into another article. There's no information, no third-party sources. This should be deleted and it shouldn't need discussion. But because so many people insist on contesting PRODs on episode pages, they have to come to AFD. Don't argue against deleting when you don't have a reason to preserve this information. Please don't make the "per Jimbo" mistake. Argue with Jimbo when you think he's wrong on something. I think this article should be deleted, and if Jimbo doesn't like it, I don't care. Jay32183 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I really didn't care much for this but here goes.
 * 1.I know that Wikipedia is larger than Jimbo. The point of the quote was to show that no one agrees with your assertion of We want to discourage this type of page creation, which is why we should delete them so harshly. Every new user is potentially valuable to Wikipedia, and this deletionist stance borders on elitism and actually hurts more than it helps.
 * 2.Notability is a guideline, not a policy. Notability is highly subjective, and as I already said, there is no clear consensus on what makes a subject notable/non-notable. Thus it is not enough for you to keep repeating it's just not notable. For instance, I can argue that this episode has been seen by millions of people and was broadcast in hundreds of countries in the world and thus it satisfies notability, and you can't argue against that, because yes, notability is subjective.
 * 3. Just because it's a stub, you say there's no information. I see a summary, airdate, cast, writer, director, and I'm sure if someone looks hard enough, there are secondary sources somewhere in the world (a magazine article or a newspaper column) that gives critical commentary for this episode... these can all be used to construct a List of episodes page per WP:EPISODE. Also if this gets merged then redirect is a more viable option than delete as the redirect will optimize searches for the title to the proper page where the summaries can be listed.
 * If you can somehow organize people to work on this series in a cohesive project like Simpsons, Smallville, etc. then this article can be much better than it is. Unfortunately, you can't force people to work on articles that they're not interested in, so unless you plan to fix this yourself I say leave it alone.— Sandtiger  03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one is willing to work on such a crappy article then deletion is the best option. If there's a problem, then "do nothing" is the worst possible solution. Jay32183 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion and not supported by any guideline or policy on wikipedia. Stubs are allowed so other people can expand them. And since you only responded to the last sentence and pretty much ignored the rest of my argument, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. — Sandtiger  04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I never wanted you to respond in the first place. I'm saying delete and that you shouldn't argue to keep, which means I don't want responces. This should be deleted. WP:EPISODE should not be used a deletion protection. It is stupid and silly to do that. This article violates that guideline by not providing information on production or reception. It does not say stubs should be created to allow others to expand. In fact it says that the indivdual episode pages should not be created until there is a significant amount of encyclopedic material to split off from the main article. Jay32183 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even read that page? WP:EPISODE states that problem articles should be merged, not deleted, but if the merge is not possible then leave the article as it is or consider improving it. And please, you're trivializing your own arguments by qualifying them with "stupid" and "silly."— Sandtiger  04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying delete and that you shouldn't argue to keep, which means I don't want responces.--Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia works by consensus, not voting, so if you're just voting but not offering arguments then your votes are meaningless.— Sandtiger  04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You know, Jay, throwing around words like "silly" and "stupid" not only doesn't address the argument they're aimed at, borders on being uncivil and quite often makes the person doing the throwing sound like a dick. For every time you say something like arguing for the article by citing a guideline in answer to your cited guideline is silly and stupid, I can just as easily say that misrepresenting WP:SUMMARY arguments is silly and stupid and it no more addresses your actual argument than your doing it addressing mine. The unanswered questions remain: 1) why should WP:N, which is a guideline and not a policy, be controlling instead of WP:SUMMARY, which is a guideline with every bit as much authority as WP:N and specifically addresses this type of article? and 2) why should the section of WP:N that specifically suggests a merge and redirect for stub articles of this sort be disregarded? You say you don't want responses. Well, that's really unfortunate for you but so long as you post on a public message board the very real possibility exists that people are going to respond to you.
 * I have added a sourced citation of a nomination for a professional award that this episode was nominated for. That plus the fact that "notable" is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice" and a television show that has been seen by millions of people in dozens of countries has certainly attracted notice and your arguments for deletion are complete and utter nonsense. Otto4711 04:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The criterion for determining notability on Wikipedia is "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." That is an objective criterion and this article fails it. The article is almost entirely plot summary. Merging is only acceptable when there is content that deserves to be preserved and the existing article can't stand on it's own. The only content worth preserving here is already on the episode list. Do you even realize what you're trying to save? Jay32183 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And, as has been noted repeatedly, WP:N is a guideline. WP:SUMMARY is also a guideline, and both guidelines have equal weight in determining the status of articles. You have yet to explain why WP:SUMMARY, which directly addresses the article at hand, should be discounted in favor of WP:N, and you have also not explained why the merger section of WP:N should be disregarded. The article is clearly more than a plot summary as it includes information on cast, crew and awards. Otto4711 18:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SUMMARY does not apply here, no article became too long with nontrivial information. WP:NOT#7 does however. Why would summary style matter when I said not only should the article not be kept, but none of the content should be retained anywhere? Jay32183 18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, that's just your opinion. You can't delete an article just because you don't like it. Quit repeating WP:N. Your argument is not going to get better just because you keep repeating it. Not every topic can be held to the same standard of notability, which is why we have WP:BK, WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTFILM, and yes WP:EPISODE which trumps WP:N in this matter. It clearly states: Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research. Nothing in here is unverifiable or OR.— Sandtiger  23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not what WP:EPISODE means. This article fails the standards of WP:EPISODE. Trying to avoid AFDs does not mean that an article that does go to AFD cannot be deleted. Let me explain the options to you and what they means, because you clearly don't know. "Keep" means the article can be sourced well enough to stand on its own. This article cannot do that. "Merge" means the article cannot stand on its own, but there is content worth preserving within a subtopic of another article. Again, this article doesn't do that, because the episode list already has the information it needs. "Delete" the article cannot stand on its own and does not contain information worth preserving. That is a perfect fit for this article. We are currently only discussing this article, not all episode articles. Jay32183 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, that's your opinion unsupported by anything on wikipedia. I find it funny that you're starting to personalize this. Offended much? — Sandtiger  23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion. The article is a blantant violation of WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#7. I'm not offended, I'm angry at your stupidity. Go ahead and cite WP:CIVIL to me, because I sincerely hope you are offended, as that will be the only way you'll understand how wrong you are. This article is a piece of crap and there is no way to make it not crap. Let it get deleted. Your initial argument for why the article shouldn't be deleted was the perfect reason to delete it. The only reason that this article shouldn't have come to ADF is that it easily could have been PRODed, but if that were your reasoning you wouldn't argue against anyone saying it should be deleted. Jay32183 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Nope, it's not working. Try again. — Sandtiger  00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument or my attempt to offend you? Jay32183 00:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By making an ad hominem attack, you've automatically forfeited all your credibility. I think all your comments can be ignored now. — Sandtiger  01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't an ad hominem attack. I wasn't say the argument is invalid because you are stupid, I was saying that you are stupid because you insist upon an invalid argument. Your argument is wrong no matter who says it, and not every thing you say will be wrong. In a completely different situation I may agree with you. I think we both know that this will end up closing as no consensus if the discussion is just the two of us going back and forth. Jay32183 01:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep telling yourself that. Whatever, no consensus translates to a win for me. Huzzah!— Sandtiger  02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't take no consensus as a win. The article will be back at AFD later. The fact that no improvement has been made will weigh heavily then. You have not once presented a valid argument as to why the article should be kept, you just won't shut up. You have even been calling facts opinions. It is a fact that the article is just plot summary. It is a fact that Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. It is a fact that this article list no reliable third party sources. It is a fact that articles need to list reliable third party sources. You've also been arguin backwards, starting with your conclusion and then figuring out what you can use to support it. That is why I called you stupid, and would have said much worse in person. Jay32183 03:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, the insults are still not working. That's the best that you can come up with? Shame. Again, argumentum ad hominem that demolished your credibility. Your arguments aren't worth reading anymore. I'm done with this topic. I do however invite you to read the The Rules of Conversational Warfare so you can avoid losing your composure the next time you're losing an argument. Good luck, seriously — Sandtiger  03:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not once made an attack ad hominem. Showing you how your argument is wrong is the correct way to argue. That argument was again, starting with your answer and coming up with a question to arrive there. I can only assume you are intentionally trying to be disruptive to the AFD process or that you are a complete idiot. You're refusing to let me throw out the garbage because you want some one to fix the sink. Jay32183 04:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay: Please cease being disruptive at AfD. I know you hate constantly being proven wrong but you insulting other users does not help in the slightest, remember Wikipedia is not a battleground. Matthew 14:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't once been proven wrong in these discussions. You're argument is completely incorrect and backwards. Evidence must be shown that the article can be improved, not that it can't. And again, WP:EPISODE is not deletion protection. It actually says the article never should have been made in the first place. Jay32183 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're always proven wrong, I know it's disheartening for you... but I'm sure you'll get over it :-)! Matthew 18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. In fact, you always fail to include an argument. I am 100% right. This article should be deleted, as should many other individual episode pages that were created solely to make sure there were pages on all of them. Merging doesn't work when the episode list was made first. Jay32183 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems I'm the only one who ever gives valid arguments these days, I know you hate to hear it but you're 100% wrong. Please come back when you can give a convincing argument. Matthew 19:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've given a valid and sound argument. You have provided no evidence that the article can be improved, which you need to do to support your claim that the consensus is to improve not delete. If you can't do that then you are just blindly insisting that all individual episodes should have articles, which WP:EPISODE does not say. It says episode pages should not be made until there is enough nontrivial, reliably sourced information for the article to stand on its own. The article currently does not do that. You aren't even showing there's any information worth retaining for a merge to take place. Remember merge does not mean we hide the article history behind a redirect. Content actually gets copied into another article during a merge. Jay32183 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You pretending you have an argument is truly laudable! There's plenty enough non-trivial reliable sourced information in that article for me. Anyway, you can speaking junk... I'll try to refrain from laughing ;-). Matthew 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article?! It's four sentences long. Two of those sentences are plot summary, and one sentence is just definition. Are you seriously saying "keep" on the one remianing sentence after others have suggested "merge". With no evidence to show that the article can be expanded, that single sentence should be merged or deleted. Jay32183 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, I consider notability inherent on episodes (I'm not interested in what you think btw). The lead-in established oodles of notability: "'Hey La, Hey La, My Ex-Boyfriend's Back' is the sixteenth episode of season two of the television situation comedy Will & Grace. Writer Jeff Greenstein was nominated for a Writers Guild of America award for his script." There's also over ten pieces of real world information, I've yet to see anything proving it can't be expanded even further with even more r/w information to complement the ton it already has. Matthew 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all WP:NOTINHERITED. Additionally, the burden of evidence falls on those wishing to add or retain material. I do not have to show evidence that it can not be expanded, you have to show evidence that it can. In fact, the evidence that the article cannot be expanded would be the lack of evidence that it can. Again, notability is established by being the subject of multiple third-party sources. This article presents no such sources. If no one finds any, it is fair to assume they do not exist. Making a new article later if new sources are discovered can and does happen. The first sentence does not establish any notability, it just defines what the subject is. "Babe Ruth was a baseball player" does not establish notability, even though Babe Ruth is in fact notable. If you say the episode is notable, find the sources to prove it. Otherwise, stop wasting the time of everyone who actually understands the policies and guidelines. Jay32183 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep apparently notable episodes, consensus is to improve - not delete. I've not seen any evidence this can't be improved. The article establishes oodles of notability and has plenty of real world information. Matthew 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:EPISODE. The consensus is to improve or merge, not delete.  This ep had an award nomination, so it's notable.  Also, the season 2 DVD set has comments by the creators so let the article live and someone can add that info. - Peregrine Fisher 14:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A single award nomination does not make something notable. To be notable it must be the subject of multiple third-party reliable sources. Jay32183 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to a list of episodes for whatever season. Jtrainor 04:57, 26 April 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.