Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love Moesha


 * 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. alpha Chimp laudare 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I Love Moesha
Next to no information; if it's notable it should at least be deleted until there's more information. JD [ don't talk|email ] 04:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep on the grounds that it seems to be common practice to have articles on individual episodes of TV shows. I don't know enough about this particular show to have a stronger opinion than that. BigHaz 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge any useful content into a trivia bullet somewhere at the end of the main Moesha article. Poorly written fancruft like this is spreading through this project like a cancer. Moesha was a good show, but this is not good Wikipedia editing. --FuriousFreddy 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep We have tens of thousands of articles on individual episodes of tv shows. This one appears to have been nominated simply because it is a stub.  Being a stub article is a reason for expanding an article, not deleting it.  Why is this episode any less notable than any of the 100+ babylon 5 episodes, the 400 simpsons episodes, the hundreds of south park episodes, etc., which we have articles on?  --Xyzzyplugh 07:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge that which is significant into the article on Moesha...Surely if someone thought it notable enough to make an article on, it is worthy of inclusion in her article. Michael 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Technical comment. It's either "delete" or it's "merge and redirect". Tyrenius 11:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The precedent is set: TV episodes are in, especially for notable series. I wouldn't be caught dead watching this one, but it's still notable.  Needs expansion, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is precedent to the contrary. Many editors have argued that individual soap opera episodes do not warrant individual articles, for example.  Uncle G 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Much as I hate it, it looks like we are stuck with TV episode wikis. Needs expansion, not deletion. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep episodes of TV shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.There are already many television episodes on wikipedia.Other users can expand the article because it simply a stub.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u  16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per precedent. It might be a good idea to rename this I Love Moesha (Moesha episode) as at first glance at the article title I thought it was a gush page or something. 23skidoo 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plainly consensus has long held that individual eps of popular shows are article-worthy. RGTraynor 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Individual episodes of television shows are notable if the rest of the world has deemed them so. The way that we can tell that the rest of the world deems them so is that individual episode guides have already been written and published by multiple sources independent of each show's creators/producers.  "All episodes of type T television shows are notable" is just as flawed as any other "All X are notable" criterion.  Notability is not a blanket.  Wikipedia should reflect the subjects that the sources cover. Uncle G 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, are you suggesting we look for reliable sources independent of the show's creators, or just any sources? I could be wrong, but it seems doubtful to me that many television episodes have really been covered in much depth by mainstream media.  The multiple sources that one finds on simpsons, babylon 5, star trek voyager episodes, and so on, probably consist of fan web sites, blogs, personal web pages, and message board postings.  (on the other hand, we can find reliable sources for the bare bones details of most any tv show episode) --Xyzzyplugh 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We should look for multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent of the subject. With your doubt will come surprise.  Many of these shows that people want to argue "are notable enough for articles on individual episodes", but don't have a firm basis for doing so other than a feeling, actually do have independently written non-trivial works published about them.  Babylon 5 has the famous Lurker's Guide.  There are umpteen detailed episode guides for Simpsons, Star Trek, and so forth.  If you are arguing that because the sources that you can readily locate are on the World Wide Web, we have no reliable sources that give episode guides, then I suggest that you attempt to counter that FUTON bias and look at books such as ISBN 1590920376, ISBN 0440223857, and ISBN 1590920392.  Sources for "bare bones details", such as a broadcast date and so forth, do not satisfy the "non-trivial" part of the criterion, which is there precisely to ensure that individual articles aren't mere directory entries. So the question to be answered here is "Are there episode guides for Moesha?"  Or is this article original research that is not based upon sources that have already analyzed this episode of this television series?  Instead of arguing "All X are notable" (a deeply flawed argument), editors should be citing sources. Uncle G 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh, for pity's sake.  Want a source?   - there, that's one.  IMDB's got separate entries for every ep of every TV show now, and frankly, anyone deeming himself informed enough to vote on cinematic AfDs has to know about IMDB; half the media articles on Wikipedia link to it.  As far as the general consensus that individual eps are notable, you could always lead (or join) a fight to change it.  RGTraynor 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep TV is a cultural fact and a single episode can change pop culture for good. More details, please. -- Jdlow 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - wikipedia is excellent for this kind of information. - Richardcavell 03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per existing precedent. I have never watched this television show, but it does appear to be a popular program and we have several other series of articles like this one.  Yamaguchi先生 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Okay, I've added and cleanup the article a little.But like I said, there are many articles about episodes and this can/may be a stub. --Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u  04:44, 2 August 2006 (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.