Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pseudopod 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Pseudopod episodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Podcast not notable enough to have seperate page - on the main page itself Pseudopod (podcast) it could have a section on the really important episodes but not necessary for all of them. Whenaxis (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If a show/author is notable enough to have a page then a complete list of episodes/bibliography is relevant. This is standard practice for tv shows, the episode list is kept on the main page while it remains small enough.  If a separate page for the list is deemed unnecessary then the entire list should be merged into the main article, there is no real benefit to abridging it.  -- deflective (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete This is not an article but presentation of raw data. The article on the show should link to the website of the show, where this information should be posted. Borock (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP gives encyclopedic reference, not exhaustive reference. This list could go in the article - which needs content anyway - but I don't recommend that: at 200 shows it's a bit overwhelming. It would help the article, and Pseudopod (which is great, btw) a lot more if someone would just write a section on shows of particular fame/infamy. Having this list as a separate page violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY - the wiki is not "a complete exposition of all possible details". SteveStrummer (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not even convinced that the podcast itself is notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is just a list of episodes, not an encyclopedia article. Even if the podcast itself is somewhat notable I don't think individual episodes are. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A question of for deletion voters: how is this any different than television episode pages (List of One Piece episodes) and author bibliography pages (Stephen King bibliography)? -- deflective (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Two main differences: those have reliable sources, and both One Piece and Stephen King are notable. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But those are just examples showing that it's standard practice (List of The Black Donnellys episodes), it's done regardless of notability. If you're worried about a reliable source then that's a one line fix, not grounds for deletion.  Either this is standard practice for all shows or every episode list on Wikipedia should have to prove their notability.  -- deflective (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think every episode list on Wikipedia should have to prove its notability. I think a Stephen King bibliography is viable because information about the notable subject Stephen King can be gleaned from a comprehensive survey of his works. Many if not all are notable individually, and their interrelationships form a basis for examination as a body of work - a unique structure which is a new topic beyond "Stephen King, the man". On the other hand, a gratuitous, unilluminating list like List of One Piece episodes should be deleted, just like other completist's pet projects like List of Full House episodes (season 7), etc. etc. etc. Unfortunately the big ones all have legions of fans who pile on edits like layers of coral reef until their sheer size apparently makes them Too Big to Delete (or even Merge). I may be idealizing WP policy here, but I think lists of works should always be included in a subject's main article (e.g. Ray Dennis Steckler), even when the list is very long (e.g.Jean Craighead George), unless that list is article-worthy by itself. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing Wikipedia policy may be in order, but if we follow the current (informal) policy then deletion of this particular page is pretty arbitrary. Merging with the main article makes sense and will probably be the result here.  -- deflective (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2010 (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.