Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Man Standing (season 7)


 * 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.

Procedural close – This AFD is invalid due to the nominator being a confirmed sock now indefinitely blocked. A legitimate editor should start a new AFD if they believe this article shouldn't exist. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Last Man Standing (season 7)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:SPLIT wasn't properly followed. Seasons 1-6 remain on the List of Last Man Standing episodes while season 7 has it's own article. NickBubbleBuddy (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that I have struck the comments of the nominator who has been blocked as a sockpuppet. By rights, the comments should be deleted. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - As explained to the nominator this is an entirely valid article. There is no policy or guideline mandating that the season 1-6 articles are created before season 7, which seems to be the nominator's main opposition to the article existing. The article is well sourced and factual. I can't see any reason for nominating the article other than "I don't like it". It's a ridiculous nomination and a waste of everyone's time. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Semi-delete - Other seasons should have similar articles as it is too confusing to nagivate. --CaptainDanger25 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How does having an article make it hard to navigate? The remedy would be to create articles for the other seasons, not to delete the one we have and how does one "semi-delete" an article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Confirmed sockpuppet's comments redacted -- Aussie Legend ( ✉ ) 14:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that we don't do the latter. As I explained on your talk page, and here, while it's ideal to have articles for every season it's not mandated. The latest season got a page because the series was revived on a different network. Your concern that to have season 1-6 on one page then having to click a link to view the rest of the summaries doesn't make sense is a really trivial concern. If there were articles for every season we'd have to look at the summaries on 7 different pages instead of just 2. Is looking at more pages more convenient for you? Regardless, we don't delete well sourced articles just because people don't like the look of it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Regarding nominator's concerns, page split should be carried out properly.  Sourced season article doesn't merit deletion.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * After all this time (9 months and 180 edits by 42 editors), any split concerns can be addressed by the appropriate template. It's certainly not enough to warrant deletion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge and draftify An episode table, a ratings table, and a few sentences of a production do not make a season article. There is nothing here that cannot be included in the parent and episodes article. Merge the content and draft the article until it has been expanded. See the recent Arrowverse articles on how to properly develop an article to be ready for the mainspace. -- / Alex /21  07:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, look at Articles for deletion/The Simpsons (season 30) where an article with considerably less content than this survived nomination. We don't incubate articles in draft until they are GA status. If this were draftified it would be immediately be ready as a stand alone article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:11, 27 February 2019 (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.