Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book One episodes


 * 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. --Ezeu 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Start off

 * — (View AfD)

The user who created this page decided that another page, already a featured list, was too long. They then cut down the articles greatly, and put them in three seperate articles. He also decided that they should be featured, as the original one was. Couldn't think of any speedy deletion criteria that fit, but I think that it should be speedied anyway. This is the first of them, I am also nominating-
 * List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book Two episodes
 * List of Avatar: The Last Airbender iTunes and DVD releases

Comments
J Milburn 16:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The original article is List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes. J Milburn 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hope the three proposed articles can be deleted with as much speed and efficiency as possible. None of the three articles contribute anything to Wikipedia- they were blatantly ripped from the original page, which had no length issues whatsoever and was one of the premiere articles associated with the Avatar Wikiproject. There's no reason for them to remain active. Y BCZ 16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the intent is to basically split the single list of Avatar episodes into one per season, because it does seem rather long already, and is likely to double in size again. I don't know that just creating the articles is a good idea, but it is something worthy of discussion and consideration.  So I can't recommend speedy deletion or any hasty action. I'd like to hear from some more people actually.  I actually find the objections here to be a bit troubling.  I do think asking for opinions first would have been the way to go, but I don't see any gross wrong-doing in  the actions taken.  It is not an insult for content to be split from one page, but rather the point of the GFDL. FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this action is that it was undertaken by a single user (one who does not possess an account, to make matters worse). This comes after a number of users including myself collaborated and put hours of work into getting the original list to reach Featured status. The user who created these three lists did so on a day where many users are not likely to leave comments immediately (due to rather obvious circumstances regarding the date), thus those users who I am certain would support my reasoning will not likely voice themselves for some time. I myself will be leaving shortly after posting this comment. The user who created the articles has not taken any action to improve the articles after their creation- thus, they contain no information that could not be found on the original article, thus they contribute nothing whatsoever. The alternative to deleting the three articles is to revert the original page to the status the user set it to after creating the newer trio: as a method of navigating the new pages. This is hardly a status befitting a Featured List, and I am certain a number of users would not allow this to come about (including myself). This is the reason I initially called for the deletion of all three articles, and the reason I continue to support this action. Y BCZ 17:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your first objection is untrue, the person does have an account. User:Zach111493 is a user, with an account, even if a recently established one.  This may mean many things, but I remind you to Assume Good Faith, and that you recognize that as a new user, they may not know the best protocols to follow.  That you and other users have worked hard on these pages is also not a good objection, since none of your content has been removed or deleted.  That this was done on a holiday doesn't matter much, is there any hurry to act on this decision?  Nope, taking a few days, weeks, even months on this wouldn't hurt.  There's no false information on the pages that I could see, or anything remotely libelous.  It's not a problem in need of hasty action.  Now as to the question of whether or not lists like the original episode guide should be split, I don't know, but I can imagine many series where it might well be helpful to break things into articles for each of the seasons.  OTOH, I can understand the desire to have it in one comprehensive page.  However, there is no need to be possessive about this page.  That it is a featured list doesn't mean we can't decide that it might well be improved by splitting it.  It does mean that anyone who wished to do so would be well-advised to seek consensus before doing so, but that they didn't so no reason to get upset.  A little patience on your part, and following "Don't bite the Newbies" might help a good bit. As it stands, you should avoid calling things BS and saying they contribute nothing.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What is with all these happy smily people on Wikipedia? H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as you may know, it's often a more effective method to use honey over vinegar. Not all the time, but in this case, I think practicing a little moderation might be helpful to some folks.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Using honey attracts bees. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are actually wrong in saying that no content was moved. Content was moved, and a lot of it- almost all of the information on the original list was cut out and used as content for the three new pages, I simply reverted it all back. That's virtually vandalism. My reverting the information back does thus make the three new pages obsolete- they are not valuable to Wikipedia because they contribute no new information.
 * The fact that he didn't have an account really doesn't matter- he edited a very large portion of the original article without consensus from other users, which was met with disapproval. Thus, I called for a consensus to revert this change. I have thus far not attacked the user- I have said nothing directly to him at all, and only passively addressed him as "some user with no account." I am instead attacking his actions, and I feel there is a great difference between taking action against the two targets. Finally, the fact that it is a major holiday does matter, because the change was enacted upon this date when very few users were online to speak against the action- I believe I was the only online member of the Wikiproject when it transpired. Obviously, these things do not matter at the present moment, but I believe you should hold my rather aggressive approach to resolving this incident against me. I understand that Zach made the edit with good intentions, however we all know what the path of good intentions may lead to. I am willing with all my heart to forgive him- so long as he learns his lesson. Now, Manticore, please stop arguing for the page's survival using an ad hominum argument- it should not matter at all how I act in arguing so long as my points are valid. I view this action as a mistake that should be corrected quickly and efficiently, so that we can all move on. Y BCZ 03:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any removed content. Moved?  Sure, but that's the closest you'll get to removed, and that's not a real problem.  It's still there in the history.  More importantly, it's not vandalism, virtual or otherwise.  If you want vandalism, wait till you see somebody replace an article with some random pejoratives.  That's vandalism.  This isn't even close, and you shouldn't act like it was. At most, it's a mistake, and to be honest, you could have dealt with it much more effectively than you did.  A kind, considerate word would probably have worked just as well, and you could have made the pages into redirects without even bothering with a call for deletion.  There is no hurry here, so what if it's a holiday.  It's a television show, I like it myself, but I'm not going to claim there's any pressing hurry.  I think you need to take a step back and realize that there was no harm done.  The page you have contributed to is still there, it was easily fixed, and at most Wikipedia's servers are using up a few more kilobytes of space than they would.  That's not a big deal.  Yet to me, you've gotten all riled up, as if this was something that needed to be taken care of now.  It's not.  The fact is, there is no need for an aggressive approach.  No major revert wars occurred, no trolling, no vandalism, in other words, no big deal.  And yes, how you act is very important.  If you don't believe me, try WP:Civil where you can read for yourself the thoughts of others on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 05:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's you that got riled up, Y was simply doing the same job we all do DAILY. DAILY we get large amounts of things done to pages without concensus. DAILY we revert repeated vandalism. DAILY we explain to users why their edits were changed and have to hear the shouting from them. But today, when Y was simply doing the same job he's done day in and day out (normally those deletions happen right away as with the recent page created for Avatar Characters), you decided to step in and start dismissing our actions, the very same actions that got this article into FA status to begin with. It's true that redirection could have worked, but redirection does not always get the editor to stop (and if you don't believe that, i've got a few history pages to show you, (how many times have we deleted Kataang or Zutara?)). 06:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't feel I'm riled up, nor do I feel that would even appear to be so from my words. If I have given that appearance, let me assure you that is not the case.  I'm troubled, sure, but not upset.  Your concerns about vandalism are certainly valid, but you needn't worry about expressing them, I've dealt with my share of it too, so I'm quite aware of it.  It's not a problem limited to the Avatar pages, but one unfortunately endemic to Wikipedia.  There are many reasons why it happens, but that it does happen so pervasively is a reason to keep a cool head.  However, unlike actual vandalism, or articles like Kataang or Zutara, this was a potentially reasonable decision.  At the least, it didn't violate any explicit principles of Wikipedia, aside from seeking Consensus first. But since boldness is encouraged, it's not a great problem.  Nothing was vandalized, no bad content was introduced.  Since it was objected to, it would have been better to assume good faith, inform the editor of the objections to that bold action(which was not done until after this began, aside from some inappropriate talk page comments), revert the moved content(which was done anyway, so not a problem), and so the only problem would be the existence of these pages.  Which is not actually a great problem.  It's a few extra kilobytes of disk space, and if quick action was really wanted, a couple of redirects would have put the pages out of action immediately.  Or you could have spoken to the creating editor, and asked them to request the pages be deleted.  A gently worded request might have accomplished that very easily.  Instead, we get a person calling the action BS on the talk pages and this nomination which has problems with folks being a bit overzealous.  I'm sorry if I am saying it in a way that offends you, but I do find that to be a matter of concern, and so I have politely tried to express it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I just say, the reason these articles annoyed me personally was that they were brand new, and claimed to be featured status despite the fact that they had not been through the usual featured system. Whenever I have seen this before, they have been spoof articles, that needed to be deleted. J Milburn 15:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case I'd say it was a result of a new user copying and pasting the information without realizing that certain parts weren't appropriate for a split. Ignorance, maybe, but certainly not any kind of spoof or vandalism.  As things go, there are a lot worse things to worry about.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The original author of these articles has requested that they are kept, on the talk page of one of the articles. I have left a note on their talk page abour voicing their opinion here.
 * You might wish to try User:Zach111493 instead, as that person created the articles. May indeed by the same editor, may not, but it is better to try to find a user than an IP address. FrozenPurpleCube 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In any case, one person simply saying "it's better" doesn't mean it's true. I see a lot of people supporting the delete, and backing up their opinions logically. I cannot say the same for the other side of the decision, though. Sorry, but we can't just make everyone happy. Y BCZ 03:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been less than 24 hours since the nomination was made, and you yourself have argued that it's a holiday. I think you may wish to wait and see if people come up with anything.


 * Comment: Aside from this talk page, I thought it might be easier to move around with different sections and a guide at the top. Zach111493 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regardless of what is done at the end, all three lists should be put through FLC once more as they are essentially new articles. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 03:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They won't be staying. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Someone has made the articles into redirects anyway. I guess that would have been the best course of action in the first place, that is partially my fault, but Y was rather angry, and out for blood. Apologies. I guess this should stick then. J Milburn 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately, now that this process is started, it does have to remain. However, I do think that this is a clear lesson that sometimes a bit of moderation can be a better way to accomplish a desired goal, and that stepping back from an initial angry reaction can be a good thing.  There are things to get upset over, this never amounted to that.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I proposed a new idea for the itunes page or the episodes page, the itunes section, look at this talk page. New idea for format Zach111493 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss that. In any case, the main article is a featured list, meaning that drastic changes would probably be a bad idea, and there would be a lot of people who wanted to discuss the matter. If I were you, I would copy out your new format idea to a sandbox within your user space, then link to it from the talk page of the article. It might be worth linking to it from the WikiProject as well. Explain why you think the new layout is better, and discuss it with the members. J Milburn 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete

 * Delete and/or redirect-Entirely unnecessary. Not to mention, the episode list has a currently hidden section designed for when new episodes are announced but yet to air. This also leaves broken links galore all around, for no significant gain. Furthermore, this was a featured list before, so any arguments that it wasn't functional seem rather groundless. What's more, there are featured episode lists far, far longer than this one. Its pointless, done with no consensus, and the articles should either be deleted or redirected to the existing article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Delete If it is done to this seires, then why isn't done to the rest of the tv shows that are featured lists? Answer: FLC 1A. Having them all together makes them useful, by sepperating, their usefulness is decreased. The Placebo Effect 18:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete NOW. A page with all the episodes on it will not, as we currently know, ever get above 60 episodes long, having them on multiple pages just makes it clunky when trying to find things when you can just as easily find them on one page with a key. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 22:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * delete Odd format for an AfD, by the way. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect/Merge We already have an article about this subject with season 2. This article is quite unnescessary, and I recommend redirecting or merging.-- PrestonH  | talk  |  contribs  |  editor review  | 05:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unwieldy, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. These shouldn't stay, but would make poor redirects. J Milburn 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well...
I thought that it would be better but, I was proven otherwise. Zach111493 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it falls under Speedy Deletion due to author's request... J Milburn 23:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please Yell at me for what I've done) Zach111493 01:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)