Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locked In (House)


 * 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. Nja 247 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Locked In (House)

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

The article is a sloppy, poorly written and unreferenced account of a single episode of the TV series House. To the best of my interpretation, one episode does not meet the General Notability Guideline unnless, as is not the case here, the episode has some particular significance. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note. Having checked the edit history, I have not notified the author as he appears to have had only a minor role in the article and no role whatever after its creation. The bulk of editing has been conducted by a number of IP users and other users who have made one or two edits. As such, I have not notified them via their talk pages of this nomination. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most notable television shows have individual episode pages at this time. That said, improve the thing! I would, but I don't follow House, so I wouldn't be of much help there... Toad of Steel (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. To say "one episode does not meet the general notability guideline" is to go completely against the grain; while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't valid, THOUSANDSOFOTHERSTUFFEXISTS is supporting evidence at least. Poor writing is something for cleaning, not deleting. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of House episodes. Most notable television shows shouldn't have articles for each individual episode, not unless they're well sourced and much more than a plot summary.  Most Doctor Who and Star Trek episode articles, for example, qualify.  This one doesn't.  Powers T 19:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: see Articles for deletion/The Fourth Man in the Fire, Talk:List of Charmed episodes for precedent. Powers T 19:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most articles on new television episodes take a while to mature, just like current events. I'm not disagreeing in that an episode's article should have third party reviews (per source), but a Cleanup is sufficient; there's no need to resort to an AfD (unless the cleanup has been up there for a couple months and there's no sign that it is being cleaned up). Toad of Steel (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * this, this and this means it certainly is covered. Problems with the article can be easily corrected without resorting to deletion. Wikipedia does not work on precedent; we're not a court of law. While recent precedent can be taken as an example of what the community thinks of certain situations, those discussions took place over a year ago and six months ago respectively. Ironholds (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's unsourced, find sources. We're debating whether sources exist - they certainly do. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is highly likely reviews exist for this episode, even if they aren't found on-line. My local paper covers 2-4 different show episodes a day of major series.  Others do too. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this meets the notability requirements. If it's nothing more than a plot, add to it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of House episodes. There's nothing notable about this episode.  The show is notable; every single episode is not. -Sketchmoose (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:N, notability is determined by coverage in reliable independent sources. This episode is covered so it's notable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are articles for a very large number, if not all, episodes of House leading up to this episode. It's pointless to bring this single article up for deletion.  Pale2hall (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve Jenuk1985  |  Talk  01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Some of this refers to inference and motives, and therefore needs a secondary source.  DGG (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per almost all of the above, and failing that, a redirect doesn't need (and shouldn't be taking up space in) AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is unsourced to any reliable sources and consists wholly of plot (which is already covered in the list of episodes).  While not as damning as being unverified and failing WP:NOT, the article also has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, failing to meet the notability guideline.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the rest of the discussion or, failing that, do a basic search. Google pulls up this, this and this within the first page. Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2009 (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.