Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initiation (Kung Fu: The Legend Continues)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Initiation (Kung Fu: The Legend Continues)

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

The article contains no reliable references and I couldn't find any, so it is most likely unverifiable. Running AFD in case I happen to have overlooked any. Delete. (Not to mention the unworkable title) Mgm|(talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep consistent with treatment of other TV series. JJL (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR --Bejnar (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I had no difficulty finding reliable references. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment When Colonel Warden says that, I generally vote keep. Do you have links C-dub? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added links to the talk page of the article, as I usually do. This is where this discussion should have taken place, per WP:BEFORE.  As usual, we have the matter brought to AFD prematurely. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You've added a findsources template to the talk page. None of the hits are actually reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Los Angeles Times is a reliable source for this, for example, and there are numerous other US newspapers, as one would expect. Cue flashback...


 * Master Po : "Do you hear the grasshopper that is at your feet?"
 * Young Caine : [looking down and seeing the insect] "Old man, how is it that you hear these things?"
 * Master Po : "Young man, how is it that you do not?"


 * Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m  16:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources that establish the notability of this particular episode. The findsources template is keyed to find sources at the series level. While the series itself is probably notable (although the first several pages of Ghits don't strongly support that, as they are TV.com results and thus not considered reliable), this particular episode within the series is not. Notability does not automatically attach to every episode of a notable series. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those search links are just the starting point because search phrases which are too exact don't work well. You then qualify with other keywords like "pilot" or "initiation" to get filtered hits and there's enough out there to establish notability for our purposes.  For example, the book Television Series Revivals: Sequels Or Remakes of Cancelled Shows‎ talks of this pilot, as you would expect.  Newspaper reviews are especially focussed upon the first episode too.  Now I don't have time to go trawling through the hundreds of sources myself and it's not my job to teach you how to search.  All we need to do here establish whether to press the delete button or not.  And we don't need much in the way of sources to settle that.  You clearly accept that there is a notable topic here - the overall series.  All we're really doing here is discussing alternatives like merger or development of this article.  Deletion is in no way sensible or helpful to our readership and so the wrong forum has been chosen has been chosen for this discussion which should be on the talk page for the articles in question. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While you may not have time to go through multiple sources, at the very least you could go through the one that you claim "talks of this pilot". A search of its contents turns up precisely three pages out of a 196-page book on which the series is mentioned. One of those pages is in the index. This wouldn't even support the notability of the series, much less the individual episodes within the series. The name of the episode, "Initiation", appears nowhere within the book. I assume in good faith that you did not lie when you said that this book talked of the pilot but rather made either an oversight or a faulty assumption. Now, while it's not my job to teach you what WP:N means, I'm happy to explain it again. A topic is presumed to be notable when independent reliable sources significantly cover the topic. Posting a link to a list of online mentions of the series in unreliable sources is not a legitimate argument in favor of the presumption of notability. There is no separate episode list for this series, nor per WP:EPISODE does such an episode list seem warranted, so we are not discussing a merge as there is no merge target. "Initiation (Kung Fu: The Legend Continues)" is an extremely unlikely search term and anyone who knows that this is an episode of the series is probably bright enough to figure out to search for the series. And actually, deletion would be very helpful to our readership because it would help to send a message that not every episode of every television series should have its own article and perhaps encourage them to do a little thinking before creating more such articles for more such non-notable episodes. Otto4711 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTPAPER and over seven years of precedent for episode articles. It's an episode of a notable TV show, and a pilot episode. Most information in episode articles is verifiable from the episode itself. --Pixelface (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see your NOTPAPER and raise you WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTPLOT. Verifiability is not an issue here. Real-world information that is independent of the episode is the issue. Is there any? Do you have reliable sources for it? What are they? As for your link claiming "seven years of precedent", I seem to recall that Jimbo has in the intervening seven years repudiated his agreement with the idea that every episode of every series should have its own article, and even if he hasn't, Jimbo is not the end-all and be-all of encyclopedic content so appealing to his authority is far from persuasive. Far more recent precedent (November 2007 as just one of many examples) demonstrates that even if there were a consensus seven years ago in favor of articles for every episode, that consensus has changed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Pixelface, Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't realize it was the pilot. Sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um yeah, see, the so-called "sources" you turned up are not substantively about the pilot episode itself, which you would probably have known if you'd actually bothered to look at a few of them. Some of your so-called "sources" are not even about this series, but are instead about a previous attempt to revive the Kung Fu franchise and have nothing to do with this episode or series at all. Typical of the "sources" that actually discuss the series is TIME magazine, which says of the series "Warner Bros. TV has lined up 142 stations to carry Kung Fu: The Legend Continues, with David Carradine back as a mystic martial artist..." and "Time Trax and Kung Fu, on the other hand, are made for only about $750,000". So, like every other so-called "source" offered up, nothing whatsoever about this episode specifically. Yet again, nothing has been offered that supports the idea that this specific episode is independently notable. Otto4711 (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * False positives are irrelevant. What matters is the hits which reference this pilot.  These exist and so notability is established.  Cue another flashback:


 * Young Caine : "Master? The man to whom you spoke, Lee-Yu? Is he a confused one?"
 * Master Po : "What is your view?"
 * Young Caine : "He is a beggar, like the rest. I can see he is greatly in need of food. But he does not eat."
 * Master Po : "He seeks to satisfy a stronger hunger."
 * Young Caine : "He values what is worthless." (Broken pieces of pottery, which Lee-Yu uses to decorate a monument he is making for a public area)
 * Master Po : "To you, to me, perhaps. Not worthless to him."
 * Young Caine : "Bits and pieces that cannot be put back together."
 * Master Po : "Not to understand a man’s purpose does not make him confused."


 * Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but have you actually read the general notability guideline? I have to think that you haven't, or that you don't understand it, based on your comment that a mere "reference" in a source serves to establish notability. Notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Simply mentioning the episode does not equal "significant coverage". Notability is not established by simple "references". There are no sources that offer significant coverage of this particular episode, thus notability is not established. All your cutesy-poo quotes do not get past that fact. Let's see even one source that offers significant coverage of this individual episode. Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We have sources which provide significant coverage, as discussed above. Your measure of significance seems to be more severe than mine and others - so it goes.  The moral of the flashback is that we should not dismiss the fragmentary efforts of others lightly, since by perserverance a good result may be assembled.  Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We have sources which provide significant coverage, as discussed above. I have repeatedly asked which of the sources provide significant coverage, and you have repeatedly failed to respond. The only source that you have discussed at any length actually contains no reference to this episode at all. I can only conclude that you are unable to identify any such sources, otherwise surely you would have specified them by now. I am not applying any standard of my own. I am applying the black letter of the notability guideline, which states that coverage must be more than trivial and that single-line mentions in larger sources are trivial. If you are unable to identify by name even a single source that offers significant coverage of this specific episode (not coverage of the series and not simply mentioning that the episode exists) then you are being intellectually dishonest arguing in favor of the article. Deletion is extremely helpful, because it not only removes an unsuitable article from the project but it encourages people not to waste time on articles on non-notable subjects.
 * So I'll ask again: what specific sources offer significant coverage of this particular episode? Do you have an answer to that question, or by your silence are you acknowledging that there are no such sources? Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm on it. Sheesh.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.`
 * Keep. Because of the interest generated by the return after 20 years of David Carradine and the King Fu Series to television, there was naturally a great deal of coverage that addressed that return and its pilot episode. A cursory search (Google News 1992,Google News 1993) shows many. Unfortunately, articles that were at one time available at news stands are now in pay-per-view archives or available in public libraries on microfiche. Naturally, this is why WP:NTEMP was written... to accept that what was once easily available might one day become more difficult. It is that assumption in good faith provided by the guideline, in that the return of the series to television recieved coverage some 17 years ago and that the pilot episode would have recieved a focus of this attention, that allows our presumption in good faith that notability could have at one time been easily met... even if more difficult as time goes on. So... in reading WP:NF.... since the pilot episode had a world-wide release, and because there is a safe presumption that the pilot received review by critics of that time, and since this episode is available on commercial DVD re-release more than 5 years after its initial airing, Its keep is locked in stone.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NTEMP states in relevant part "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". This means that old sources are sufficient to establish notability, if those sources exist. This does not mean that a personal assumption about the existence of old sources is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. WP:NTEMP states that there is no need, once initial sources establish notability, for new sources to be generated. It does not mean that we may assume that sources exist but we just can't find them because they are old. The Google hits do not show sources that are substantially about the pilot episode specifically. They are about the series in general, or they are about the new trend in syndicated programming, or they are about the Carradine brothers, or in at least one instance they are about a Kung Fu magazine in which the word "continues" appears later in the article. This sort of sloppy research and faulty assumption-making is exactly why mere Google hits are not a valid method of determining notability. A search for "Hitler" and "rutabaga" turns up as many Ghits as your search. Have I now established a notable relationship between Hitler and rutabagas? No, no more than you've established that this individual television episode meets notability. WP:NF pertains to films. not television episodes, Even if it were about TV episodes, distribution of the pilot (along with at least two reviews by nationally-known critics, which have not been offered here) is simply one of a series of "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", not an indicator of notability in and of itself. The episode's release on DVD has absolutely no bearing on its notability and indeed home video release is not only not an indicator of notability, it isn't even one of those "attributes". Your "stone" is more like sand at high tide. Otto4711 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I find it troubling that editors here spend so much time trying to delete other editors contributions, instead of trying to improve these articles. I imagine in the time it took the above editor to write the 330 word support for deletion, that editor could have added references. I can't imagine how much content this editor could have created, instead of attempting to delete 719 editors articles. Ikip (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above editor would merrily have added references to reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual episode, if they existed. They do not. Your personal sorrow over how editors choose to spend their time is irrelevant to the fact that the article does not and cannot meet our notability guidelines. Your effort to discredit my actions by linking to other AFDs is pathetic, but given that over 70% of them resulted in either deletion or redirection, it would appear that in the vast majority of cases I have been correct in making the nominations. Now, do you have any actual defense of this article, or are you planning on dissolving in tears while launching more personal attacks? Otto4711 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish to remind all to observe WP:CIVIL. That the sources no longer exist, and so cannot now be found, is why WP:NTEMP was written. To write "if they existed. They do not" ignores that BEFORE wiki and BEFORE the internet, they did. That you cannot find them because does not ment they did not exist then, even if the "do" not at this time. WP:NTEMP specifically recognizes this. The circumstances surrounding David carradine's and Kung Fu's return to the small screen would most definitely HAVE recieved coverage, despite clams that it "did not".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish to remind you that WP:CIVIL cuts both ways and it seems odd for the person who launched an unprincipled personal attack to complain when his hostility is answered in kind. Unless you are prepared to offer documentation that was written at the time that WP:NTEMP was formulated, I will continue to believe that your interpretation of it is not correct because your interpretation is not supported by the simple language of the text. NTEMP states: If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. The key word there is IF. The article must pass WP:N first before WP:NTEMP comes into play. Nowhere does it say that NTEMP allows for the assumption of pre-existing sources. NTEMP states that old sources remain valid sources even if no new sources come into existence. It requires that topics met the general notability guideline. NTEMP answers the argument "no one's written about this event/person/place in 100 years so it's no longer notable". It does not allow "I think that this person/event/thing was notable before the Internet but I don't have the reliable sources that demonstrate it but there should be an article anyway". And you know, I agree with you that the revival of the series and the return of Carradine to the role would have received media coverage. Sources that discuss the series and the return support the notability of the series. I really do not understand where the disconnect is between the notability of the series and the notability of an individual episode of the series. If you are so sure that there simply must have been reliable sources specifically about this individual episode, then once you locate them you can take the article to WP:DRV and demonstrate the sourcing. But as it stands now, there is no such sourcing that has been offered here, and all this "Golly gee, I just know there's sources out there somewhere" balderdash does not get the article past WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Kung Fu TV series is notable. This seems to me a reaasonable WP:FORK for length of the main article, and fully in keeping with the treatment of other TV series (e.g. see List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) and similarly for the other seasons--every ep. gets a page). JJL (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EPISODE, the guideline for creating articles is as follows: Series ---> Season, if reliable sources exist for the season --> Episode, if reliable sources exist for the episode. There are any number of TV series which have had their episode articles removed because the sourcing for the individual episodes does not exist. Re the MASH episodes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't support keeping this article just because of those articles. A good example of this process in action: Ellen (TV series) --> List of Ellen episodes (which cites some sources but could be improved) --> The Puppy Episode, which is a clearly notable episode of the series, as supported by many reliable sources from books, newspapers, television interviews, etc. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Err... I was not incivil. But thank you for inadvertantly supporting my keep opinion as you did above. In 1992, Wikipedia did not exist. If it had, this article would have passed the WP:N with flying colors. Safe as that presumption is, let's put it this way... as a bald assertion: In 1992 the pilot episode HAD significant coverage in significant sources independent of the subject... sources heralding the return of David Carradine and Kung Fu to the small screen and centering on how the pilot episode would tie together the return of a mystical Kung Fu master from the old west into a modern environment. Oops. There was no Wiki article in 1992 or 1993, so there was no need to save old newspapers and magazines about the an as-yet unwritten article. I had no thought to look into a crystal ball and discover that in 2009 someone who could not find articles written in newspapers or magazines in 1992 would then declare "I cannot find them so they do not exist" as an argument to delete a wiki article. I do not now, 17 years later, have to be forced to produce evidence to support my contention that 17 years ago someone wrote an article or 2 or 10 about this subject. I do not own a time machine, and cannot be compelled to build one to back up a logical statement. Conversely, in refuting my simple statement, it is up to you to prove that no one wrote about it 17 years ago... to prove that Carradine's return to television was not covered 17 years ago... to prove that Kung Fu's return to television was not covered 17 years ago... to prove that interest in how the old series would become the new series was not covered 17 years ago. Here is the complete and total text of WP:NTEMP: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future."  So, here's my simple assertion: In 1992 and 1993 the article met all requirements of the GNG. I explained why. Period. You assert that it did not. You explained why. Other editors can now decide the merits of our diametrically opposed opinions in light of guideline and current wiki practices. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah you were uncivil. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to series article unless and until significant reliable-source coverage of this individual episode is located and cited. Several editors have looked for such sources and failed. The burden of proof is on those asserting that this episode received significant critical commentary to prove it, not on those who have tried and failed to find sources to prove that none exist. "Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface." Jfire (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, I have access via my local library to the full text of the following articles:
 * Significant coverage of series, characters, actors, etc; no significant coverage of pilot episode.
 * excellent coverage of Carradine and the Caine character, but the extent of coverage of the episode are these sentences: "The two-hour pilot, airing at 8 p.m. Wednesday on Channel 44, introduces Caradine in Toronto's modern-day Chinatown, where the citizens ask him to help fight a mysterious gangster. Also working on the case is Caine's long-lost son Peter (played by Chris Potter), a plainclothes detective. The two are reunited and agree to solve the mystery together."
 * No coverage of episode other than air date.
 * Discusses the return of the franchise, Carradine, etc. Extent of episode coverage: "In the pilot Peter tries to pass himself off as a hitman to infiltrate a nest of criminals. Predictably the bad guys find him out. Still there are a few interesting twists along the way."
 * The relevance of the results falls of rapidly after these 4 articles. The conclusion I draw is that news articles of the era covered the series, the significance of the return of the franchise, Carradine's role, and the principal characters, but did not provide substantial coverage of the pilot episode itself. Thus the verifiable material provided by these sources is better suited for the main article. Jfire (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep then decide whether to merge on the talk page. The sources are clearly enough to avoid deletion, the only open issue is whether there is significant enough coverage for a separate article or whether information should merged into the main series article. A time-limited AfD is not the proper venue for this. DHowell (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (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.