Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sgt. Frog 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Sgt. Frog episodes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an unverifiable, original research episode listing. Wikipedia is not a television directory or indiscriminate list of trivia. Tavix (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep consistent with treatment of other TV shows. JJL (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim. Trivia alone is not a reason to delete. There is a quite large precedent that lists of TV series episodes are acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep is it seriously being asserted that the sequence of the individual episodes can never possibly be sourced? Obviously, some references mus tbe added, but to call this unsourcable is neither sensible nor productive. How much information to include on each isa different question: I do not think the information here needs trimming--rather, it needs expansion--the descriptions are really easers, setting up the situation. I suspect they may have been copied from some TV-guide-like source--encyclopedic descriptions say what happened, giving the entire story arc, not omitting the conclusion. We do not say "Better yet, the Hinatas discover something that is almost unbelievable in the sergeant's portable refrigerator! " We describe what the discovered. That's the true meaning of the guidelines -- we give concise, but adequate, plot summaries. DGG (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm with DGG on this one. How can this possibly not be verifable??? Also, as TenPoundHammer and JJL assert, as do I, lists of episodes are overwhelmingly preferred in lieu of individual episode articles, so we should encourage this sort of listing. 23skidoo (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – needs cleanup, but certainly no reason to delete. Longstanding precedent for keeping lists of episodes. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 09:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per everyone else. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As 23skidoo asks, how on earth is this unverifiable? It's a very popular series, and a simple search as required by WP:BEFORE can easily verify the basic content here. Keep per standard precident for notable television series. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a ANN reference for the episode titles, which is also useable for completing missing information (kanji titles for example). Consider this article verified and it only took 30seconds (I've switched the reference tag to "refimprove" rather then remove it, but it should be enough). The issue is probably due to naming differences between the currently unreleased english release and the existing japanese release (meaning much of the page may need updating as it starts being released). I was going to fix the tables, but the fact there are at least 3 different table formats used in a 200+ep list has scared me.... It could do with some work to a unified table format and splitting the seasons into separate articles to fix the size issue, but that is standard improvement work Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They scare me too, which is why I've been staying away from them, but possibly someone (else) at the cleanup committee can be talked into lending a hand. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Question for nominator: What, exactly, are you pointing at when you say "original research"? (Keep in mind that our policies are clear that just because something is not explicitly sourced doesn't mean it's original research, just that it might be.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I could be wrong, but I think that it is original research because it seems like a person just decided to compile a random episode list from the show. From the article, is there any way to prove that these are actually the episodes and they actually contains this? No, because it is unreferenced. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per everyone else, and slap nom with a trout. — Dino guy  1000  21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the trout, I'll use it for dinner. =) Tavix (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... fish sticks sound pretty good, actually... ^_^ — Dino guy  1000  22:16, 15 December 2008 (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.