Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgment (Angel)


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of Angel episodes. History is preserved if sufficient sourcing comes into existence Star   Mississippi  14:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Judgment (Angel)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. Donald D23  talk to me  00:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America.  Donald D23   talk to me  00:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was premiere episode that had multiple reviews two of which I have added to article, which ran in multiple papers, & . One is joint review with Buffy premiere but both are by notable writers. Plot could use better citations. WikiVirusC (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Angel episodes where it already has an entry. Unneeded CFORK which fails GNG, routine entertainment synops do not show notability. Nothing to merge, article is fancruft.  // Timothy :: talk  06:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Angel episodes per above, where the episode is listed. CycloneYoris talk! 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If redirect is route we go, Angel (season 2) would be a better target, as that is what is transcribed to the List of Episodes anyways. WikiVirusC (talk)</b> 01:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

*Procedural Keep User:Donaldd23 nominated 5 articles for deletion in a 6-minute period. They have a history of not doing a proper BEFORE, and they continue to break Wikipedia policy with these nominations. Nfitz (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Procedural Keep User:Donaldd23 nominated 5 articles for deletion in a 6-minute period. They have a history of not doing a proper BEFORE, and they continue to break Wikipedia policy with these nominations. Nfitz (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are only allowed one !vote. Please do a proper study of Wikipedia guidelines before voting twice. Donald D23   talk to me  21:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Really User:Donaldd23 - you want to pretend that was an attempt to vote twice, rather than an extremely obvious editing mistake; and then suggest I study the rules about voting twice? Do you often try and mislead people in AFD discussions? In Football they call this diving. Nfitz (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * BEFOREs don't need to be done immediately before I nominate. I do a batch of BEFOREs and then go and nominate the articles, improve the article and remove the notability tags, or do nothing because I didn't find enough to either improve or delete. Where is the policy that I am breaking by listing these deletions all at once? Maybe you cannot do research on multiple items and then come back to Wikipedia and present your findings, but I can. Your rationale for Keep is incorrect. Maybe you should do a BEFORE and check my talk page where I have been THANKED for doing proper BEFOREs. Donald D23   talk to me  20:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I realise now that I was thinking of someone else. Now I look like a dick ... I'll withdraw my comment. Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep WikiVirusC provides two excellent GNG references. The Rob Owen one is particularly excellent - and was internationally syndicated, as I can find numerous copies of it in various well known North American newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect The two sources added are better than most episode reviews, but they still most resemble plot summaries, and I still don’t see them as forcing need for independent pages. These are easily includable in the season article without losing value for the reader. The fact that so much of the lead is just basic info in prose form (repeated for each episode article) does not lead me to see a great need for the article to standalone. In watching and following a fair few of Donald’s episode AfDs, my attitude has grown towards redirect and merge as default with only the rarest of episodes deserving solo pages. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, a REDIRECT to the series or season page would be a viable WP:ATD Donald D23   talk to me  20:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.