Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Booster 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 keep. Krakatoa Katie  08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Dragon Booster episodes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm guessing this article was created by fans of the Dragon Booster series. Indiscriminate; Wikipedia is not a fansite, nor a directory. The main article has its own need of improvement, and I'm all for that, but the subsidiary list article(s) should go. --Stratadrake 04:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep An article listing the episodes of a given television program is actually quite common practice, and is hardly inherently a fansite or a directory. In fact, you can see several at WP:FL.  As such, I say keep, and tag article with appropriate cleanup tags.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. --Stratadrake 07:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per complete absence of sources. Jakew 10:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that there are absolutely no sources anywhere for the existence of the episodes of this television show? FrozenPurpleCube 14:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. However, with no sources cited whatsoever the article can't possibly meet WP:FICTION: "articles about fictional concepts are notable if they contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources". Jakew 14:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Manticore is correct in that episode-list articles are already established wikipractice (e.g. Category:Lists of television series episodes, and while I don't have time to compare them all, several don't cite any other sources beyond TV.com or the like, not necessarily a reliable source but any source is better than none, correct? Said list articles also do contain information such as airdates and production numbers, and splitting episode summaries off into a related list article helps keep the main article's "Plot" or "Synopsis" section in proportion to the rest of the article.  I'm willing to say Keep here because the one cleanup issue (lack of sources) is easy to address (I'd have suggested Speedy keep if Jakew hadn't already spoken up).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratadrake (talk • contribs) 14:44, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, Jakew your premise is faulty. These aren't fictional concepts, as they *are* real world episodes of a work of fiction.  Big difference.  What you're talking about is for other things, and I don't concur with it so much, but that doesn't matter since well, you're barking up the wrong tree.  A lack of sources here only means that perhaps a cleanup tag like unreferenced should be used.  Not that the page should be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And speaking of cleanup (since calls for cleanup are often empty promises in AFD), I just spent the last twenty minutes formatting the list article per the WikiProject TV recommendations and adding info such as airdates and production numbers, with TV.com as my ref. I think I've resolved the main fault of this article at this point (see my diff), and am willing to say Withdraw nomination (a.k.a. Keep).  Care for a second look, Jakew? --Stratadrake 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mister Manticore, if you read the first paragraph of WP:FICTION, it's clear that the term "fictional concepts" includes the real-world embodiment of those concepts. The requirements are such that the article has to clearly demonstrate notability, otherwise deletion is appropriate.
 * Stratadrake, I appreciate the fact that you've improved the article. However, I don't think that a tv.com link is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Nor do I think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a particularly good argument for inclusion. It may be that some shows are notable (see here, for example) while others are not. It may be that many of these lists haven't been tested in AfD, and if they were, the consensus might be to delete them. It may be that some of these have been tested but WP:FICTION wasn't considered (or didn't exist at the time). So I think we have to consider this particular article on its own merits. Jakew 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one who started off by saying "articles about fictional concepts" rather than "articles about works of fiction" the two aren't the same. Don't blame me if you make the wrong arguments.  Now in this case, if you object to the inclusion of this article, you'd have to question the notability of Dragon Booster instead.  The list of episodes is a way to appropriately cover a television series.  It's a matter of practice, where the notability isn't in question.  Really, what would be the point of not including such a list?  Leaving off information ?  That doesn't make sense to me.  Sorry, but I think you're focusing far too much on the rules and not enough on practice.  But hey, if you want to look back on AFD for lists of television episodes...go right ahead.  I'm sure you'll find a few.  Or discussions involving stubs of television episodes where the consensus was to merge into a list.  If you really do believe WP:FICTION somehow is a convincing objection to this sort of list, I suggest you ask on that page first for input, rather than try to develop consensus through AFD.   FrozenPurpleCube 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironic that as the nominator of this AFD, I'm now favoring cleanup instead. Anyway, turns out there are plenty of results for a search of episode list -related AFD's, and the verdict for most of them appears to be "Keep".  As for TV.com, I recognize that it's primarily a user-contributed site, but in absence of policies or guidelines specifically for "list of episode" articles (all I can find are the general policies), I'm just trying to follow the de facto standard set by countless other lists, one practice of which being that reliable or non, TV.com is commonly cited as a reference. --Stratadrake 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since notability is not inherited, I regard Dragon Booster as a separate issue. I do have some notability concerns with it, but this isn't the place to express them. Please note also that I'm not arguing against all such lists, only that each should meet the standards of WP:FICTION. Jakew 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I feel that would be your mistake. Notability is often inherited, in the sense that sub-articles are made from notable subjects.  This is one of the clearer cases, where one has a television show.  A description of the episodes of the show is reasonable to include as to do otherwise would be lacking comprehensiveness.  Do you have some argument as to why it's not reasonable to cover such, as opposed to references to essays on Wikipedia which aren't actually applicable to this situation?   I know shorthand references to WP:ATA are popular, but they are not always enough on their own.  Sometimes they can even be totally wrong.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, as with many things in Wikipedia, it boils down to what reliable sources discuss. It may be that a) reliable sources discuss neither Dragon Booster nor individual episodes, b) reliable sources discuss Dragon Booster as a whole but not individual episodes, or c) reliable sources discuss individual episodes but not the show as a whole (this may sound unlikely, but a controversy over a particular episode might cause that episode to have better coverage than the show itself). If a) is true then there's no reason to have either article. If b) is true then there's a reason to have DB but not LoDBe. If c) is true then there may be a reason to cover that episode(s) but not DB. Comprehensive treatment is highly desirable if and only if the subject matter is itself suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Jakew 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to argue whether or not Dragon Booster merits inclusion, that article is another matter. tells me you'll probably not be convincing to most people.  However, if you aren't making that argument, then you're making a needless objection and obscuring what is really the issue:  How to cover this subject.  I think a list of episodes of a television show is quite acceptable, if not absolutely mandatory.  Do you have some reason why it's not acceptable?  The only exception I can think of would be television shows like Soap Operas where there is no real episodic format.  That is, however, not a source issue, but a content one. Worrying about individual sources?  Needless.  The episodes themselves can serve as the source for much of the content of the article.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Episodes are primary sources. We need secondary sources as well: the existence, quality, and depth of secondary sources allows us to determine whether the primary sources are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. I have no problem whatsoever with including a list of episodes, providing that there is objective evidence that they're notable. Jakew 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have no problem including a list of episodes of a television series, since by common sense, such are included. Why? Because that's how the shows are organized, by episode.  Not covering that would be incomplete.  Thus I see your insistence on secondary sources to be a case where you're focusing highly on the rules to the point where you're not using common sense and failing to recognize the actual situation because you're focusing on the rule, and not the reason for the rule.  Can you tell me why it's an actual problem to cover television episodes in that way?  FrozenPurpleCube 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. At a rough guess I'd estimate that more than a million distinct episodes of some TV show or other have been broadcast. We can't try to include them all, and we shouldn't, for exactly the same reason that we don't try to cover every book, every CD, or for that matter every person.
 * Suppose a Martian landed on Earth tomorrow, wanting to stay for a few weeks, and it wanted to know about the most notable TV episodes. If we give it an enormous list then it cannot hope to get a comprehensive selection of the important episodes: it just gets a small, arbitrary selection (limited by reading time) of shows of mixed notability. We've failed in part of our task to inform because we've failed to sort the wheat from the chaff.
 * Now, and somewhat more plausibly, imagine that you could set a non-computer literate person in front of your computer. Imagine you could tell them to press 'random article', and have complete confidence in what they'll find. Imagine knowing that the content will be fully referenced with high-quality, reliable sources, achieving the twin goals of notability and verifiability.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we select what to include based in part upon its notability. We have to, to maximise the value of the encyclopaedia as a whole. And we've determined that the way to assess notability, in general, is through coverage in third-party sources. I know that's not ideal, but I don't know of a better way. Jakew 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first premise is wrong. First, and perhaps most importantly, this isn't about the individual episodes, this is about a list of episodes.  Potentially a huge difference.  In any case, I don't see that Wikipedia should even begin to try to assert the most notable of all TV episodes.  That would be the work of other people, and then, if appropriate we can cover their work.  And in that case, the hypothetical Martian can be referred to that example.  However, we're not writing this Encyclopedia so imaginary Martians can find out only the most important things.  At least, last I checked, it wasn't part of the 5 Pillars or anything else. But just as the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies doesn't exclude any movie not on the list, that list wouldn't exclude every other television show.  Thus I consider that a poor standard.  Not as regards Dragon Booster, it seems to be an internationally broadcast television program.  If any book, television show, or person had that kind of exposure, I'd not oppose them having an article.   As such, I consider it as meriting inclusion in its own right.  This being settled, we must address how to cover it.  Can the episodes of this television program be covered succinctly?  Yes, I believe so, unlike say, a Soap Opera, such as General Hospital with 11,000+ episodes over 44 years.  In that case, I accept that the way to cover it is something like the decade format currently used.  (Though I don't know that that is ideal, I do agree that in that case, an episode listing would not be functional). In terms of what a random article user will find, my concerns are that the article itself is informative and description.  That's more often the problem with poor writing than anything else.  Which can be a range of things, from the sloppy to the over-technical.  I'm sorry, but your objections just don't fly with me.  Either we're including information on this television show or we're not.  If we are, then this list of episodes is a valid way to do that.  And I do know a better way than following the "guidelines".  It's called common sense and using my own cognitive proceses over a slavish adhering to the rules.  Sometimes, believe it, or not the rules don't work.  Sorry, but all you're convincing me of is that the rules don't always work.  Luckily, we can ignore them when it's appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the matter of notability is not "settled". If you're arguing that merely belonging to a class of books, shows, etc with international availability is enough to be evidence of notability, then you're arguing to make significant changes to the rules. Jakew 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you are disputing the notability of Dragon Booster ? Ok, go ahead and put it on AFD.  As for the rest, you may wish to check some of the criteria.  Like WP:BK which does clearly cover cases without secondary sources.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dragon Booster itself meets notability. Google may return mostly just fansites and forums, but that's just Google bias, after all the series launched in 2004 so that's where you'd find the most coverage by secondary sources.  It's generally true that no single episode of a cartoon series meets notability criteria (except maybe for The Simpsons episodes, media coverage gravitates towards high profile content, and notability follows).  But at the same time, this is probably true for the bulk of episode-list articles out there, and episode-list AFD's have generally proven an uphill battle.
 * As far as this eplist goes, I don't even know which side I'm on right now. I'm willing to clean it up to follow the example of other episode-list articles (such as the List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes), but not during an AFD.  --Stratadrake 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep: If the series is notable then a list of episodes of the series has a place on Wikipedia. DCEdwards1966 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what Manticore says (and de facto Wikipractice for television shows in general), provided the list is addressed as part of a broader topic. Jakew argues that there is no official policy or guideline endorsing this (WP:TV project has no guideline for eplists either, just a recommendation to follow the examples of existing lists) .  --Stratadrake 01:04, 29 August 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.