Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in Gilmore Girls


 * 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 DELETE. -Docg 11:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Gilmore Girls

 * — (View AfD)

The Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is OR and non-notable and quite frankly cruft. Computerjoe 's talk 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support the deletion on the basis of OR in this article only - if this OR can be removed I would not support it. 'Cruft' is a weak reason for deletion. One man's cruft is anothe rman's useful info. Magic Pickle 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DElete as completely original research no references of any type and searching around I can't find any that are not fanzines/blogs - Peripitus (Talk) 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, impossible to source, completely OR. Even if sourced, the sourcing would not be from reliable sourcs.  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR, imdb-esque material. Although I am a huge fan of this show, we certainly don't need this crap. --- RockMFR 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge A readily available episode of a show is a primary source and acceptable as a source on wikipedia. Interpreting the information from those sources often constitutes original research but not always. Its original research of the conclusion drawn from that material favours a particular point of view, but there is nothing point of view for example about "Character A had name X in episode 1 and it was changed to name Y in every subsequent appearance". As far as cruft go, I do agree that wikipedia does delve into minutia on fictional topics more than it should, however consistency issues are something that are often discussed, especially in popular works of fiction. A merge suggestion would have been more apt here than a deletion, and could have been handled much more quickly. A mention in a parent article that there have been some issues of inconsistency in the series with a couple of notable and verifiable examples. There are only a small number of items on this list that I would actually consider to be OR (as I detailed on the talk page) with the rest being obvious which do not require interpretation on the part of the editor or reader. I don't think all examples need to be merged, just a couple. We don't need to add a long list or section to any parent article.--Crossmr 07:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree with a merge, it would just move the OR to another article (or sets of articles). How would this merge be accomplished, without violating GFDL, anyway?  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The same way any of the thousands of other merges that take place on wikipedia are done? You've been here for years now, I'm sure you've seen information merged from one article to another more than once. That is why we have the mergeto and mergefrom templates. The main gilmore girls article could make mention that there are inconsistencies in the show and make note of a couple of examples. As I stated, only a handful of the actual inconsistencies are actually OR, some  do not satisfy the criteria to be considered OR, those are the ones the examples should be drawn from.--Crossmr 17:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are talking about merging information from one article into several different articles, which would lose the edit history. I don't appreciate the snide dig, by the way.  And every single one of the inconsistancies is OR, unless multiple reliable sources have documented it.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where in WP:OR, WP:RS or WP:V it says that you have to have multiple reliable sources to show that his first appearance in season 1 Kirk was called Mick and in every subsequent episode he's called Kirk? I can tell you where it doesn't WP:OR However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. Followed up by: An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. While the time based ones which draw conclusions about what day it is are likely OR (unless somewhere in the episode it specifically says the day to contradict things) a descriptive claim like the one above is not original research. There was no snide dig intended, I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. In my time editing here of about a year I've seen countless articles merged and until now I have never seen a single person try and raise the GFDL or edit histories as a concern (a redirect is always included in a merge which preserves the edit history of the material if that is ever a concern).--Crossmr 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read our policy at WP:V which says The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a television episode is a reliable primary source for information contained within it which is the basis of these inconsistencies. Any inconsistency which does not require interpretation is not original research. And nowhere in that section does it say that it requires multiple sources. The sources are given in the article itself for each inconsistency as it labels the episode from where the inconsistency originates. Episodes are available for independent checking for rent, purchase or in syndication. Nowhere in here have I said that we should have an article on this topic, only that a mention should be made in the parent main article for the series. WP:OR clearly allows for descriptive comments to be made about a subject based on primary sources so long as no interpretation of those facts is made. There are inconsistencies on the page which are within the guidelines laid out by RS, OR and V.--Crossmr 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that a television episode is satisfactory source material, but WP:RS cals this a primary source and deprecates it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never claimed it is anything BUT a primary source. I've also shown you where in WP:OR that it allows for material to be drawn from primary sources and the conditions under which it can be used and how it can be written about. While they don't need an article of their own, some of the material is written within the confines of all the polices and guidelines. In fact WP:RS clearly states Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. There are inconsistencies which are not making interpretive claims and therefore don't require secondary sources. The current network that the show airs on and the publishing company responsible for distributing the seasons on DVD are more than reliable sources.--Crossmr 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Acceptable.--Crossmr 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also talking about merging information from one article to another single article. I.e. a short paragraph in Gilmore Girls noting that these do occur with one or two notable and non-OR examples. This would then be blanked and redirected to that article.--Crossmr 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because it won't save you any money on car insurance. Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete, textbook OR. Reminds me of the list of coincidences between the star wars movies. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite reliable sources and cleanup the OR. If the article is empty after this, then delete, otherwise merge. -- ElectricEye  ( talk ) 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sure you can use a show as a reference (e.g. "in this show, character A said B"), but any analysis or criticism about the reference is still OR.  That includes finding inconsistencies.  If you want to have a list of inconsistencies, you need sources that themselves point out the inconsistencies, and it's still pretty sketchy in terms of neutrality, since you'd be kind of endorsing those sources.  delldot | talk 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * an analysis is taking facts and drawing a conclusion. Making the statement: Sean Gunn's character was called Mick in his first appearance but Kirk in all subsequent appearances isn't an analysis and permitted by WP:OR. Whether or not calling them inconsistencies is point of view, or anything else is an entirely different debate. WP:OR allows for descriptive claims to be made about facts and inconsistency is the least pov word I could think of that would be usable to describe whats occurring. Its a factual description of the section. As long as there is no interpretation WP:OR does not stop one from collecting and organizing information from a primary source and writing about it in a descriptive way. Last 2 paragraphs.--Crossmr 03:29, 9 January 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.