Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky (Parks and Recreation)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, I do agree that not every episode of a notable TV series should have a standalone article so I recommend a merge discussion be started on the main article's talk page or at one of the relevant wikiprojects. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Lucky (Parks and Recreation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

non notable individual episode. all plot. no refs. no critique Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with your criticisms, but don't think the article should be deleted, simply revised. JPX7 (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Parks and Recreation episodes. I don't see how this can be salvaged any other way, but if someone manages to WP:HEY this, I will be impressed. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (striking previous !vote) per discussion below. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There's an article for literally every other episode of Parks & Recreation (well, except the one that aired 14 hours ago). Deleting this one random episode would be silly. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting argument - is it WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which doesn't work) or WP:COMMONOUTCOMES (which might)? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But in this case, deletion of this one article would be so bizarrely arbitrary -- it's different from saying, "Oh, we should keep this bad article about a movie, because there are lots of other bad articles about movies". This topic is part of a finite set of dozens of topics, virtually all of which have exactly the same level of notability and whose articles would be subject to the exact same complaints. It just makes no sense to delete this one without deleting all the others; the result would be a long list of episodes where every single one is linked to an article except for some reason, the eighteenth episode of the fourth season. ("Why doesn't that one have an article?" "It was deleted." "Was it especially bad, or something?" "No, it was exactly like every other article that's still here.") If you don't see that as ridiculous, I'm not going to be able to convince you why it is. But fine, here's another argument: it's notable as the subject of coverage and analysis from multiple reliable sources, as a Google search for "lucky parks and recreation review" shows. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So in other words, what you're saying is that we should keep this because WP:COMMONSENSE says that that should be the WP:COMMONOUTCOME, especially since you feel it meets WP:GNG. Okay, I'll buy that. Striking my previous !vote. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the otherstuff - I was using this episode as a trial balloon, to see the outcome to probably propose the deletion of the bulk of the other episodes as well, so common outcome I think does not apply, as the rationale used here will be echoed on other pages. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's sort of the point - we're saying that WP:COMMONSENSE says that keeping these should be the common outcome. If you'd like to do a few more (the worst ones you can find, please), by all means go ahead. Let's see if consensus is consistent. If it is, we'll consider it the beginnings of a common outcome, yeah? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This episode, as well as almost all of the episodes for this show completly fail WP:EPISODE WP:GNG etc. WP:COMMON sense says we should follow the guidelines which are very clear about content which does not belong on wikipedia. WP:COMMON is not an appeal to keep because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for finding the worst examples, I think that is somewhat of a misdirection per my argument above, but in this case, it is pretty easy, since they are literally an entire collection of unsourced all-plot. Campaign_Shake-Up, Sweet_Sixteen_(Parks_and_Recreation), Dave_Returns etc. The closest any of the articles gets to anything useful is a regurgitation of nielson ratings, and one line snips from WP:ROUTINE reviewers that review every episode of every tv show - such coverage does not show notability of individual episodes, unless we are to dramatically change the rules of WP:ROUTINE - in which case I fear the flood of articles on every episode, every song, every birth/death/wedding, every high school sporting event, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jogarth, or userfy to fix it up. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2012 (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.