Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misc Pushing Daisies articles


 * 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 REDIRECT, with slight merges where appropriate. I do not think this debate provides a 'rough consensus' for the outright deletion of either batch of articles. I don't really understand why someone should want to present a non-existent red link for any of these, to be completely honest. However, there is a pretty clear sway toward the opinion that they should not standalone as they do at present. It is indisputable that the articles by and large are excessively over-detailed for an encyclopedia and belong on the Wikia from whence they largely came. I'm therefore going to: I recognise that the nominator attempted this before; I hope this AfD provides a community mandate to have those redirects stick. Bear in mind that the material is accessible to those who would merge from the articles' histories, but that injudiciously doing so is likely to be seen as counter to the outcome of this AfD. -Splash - tk 15:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) REDIRECT the character articles to List of characters in Pushing Daisies.
 * 2) REDIRECT the episode articles to List of Pushing Daisies episodes.

Misc Pushing Daisies articles
(View log) (View AfD)
 * Character articles


 * Episode articles

This is an AfD for a small collection of character and episode articles for the TV show Pushing Daisies.
 * Deletion rationale

None of these articles contain enough real-world information to warrant their creation, and their creation is rather recent (about one month for the character articles, less for the episode articles). Per WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT, I redirected the articles till a time where they are able to contain enough real-world information. Since I have been reverted, and more than once, it seems this has become an issue, and I'm bringing these articles to AfD. Normally I wouldn't bring such articles to an AfD, usually because they're older and have had a lot more work done on them. This is different, possibly a chance to nip a potential problem in the bud, before it becomes a mass of articles, and before a lot more editors lose their contributions, and their time.

I have left the first episode article, Pie-lette, out of this AfD, since first episode articles have shown a reasonable potential for real world information in the past, and the article does have a reception section. Since I think it is likely that some of the main character articles will some day receive enough real-world information, I consider my position on them to be a weak delete. If kept, they definitely need some excessive stuff trimmed from them (such as this list). And we certainly don't need an entire article for the narrator.

I'm all for growing this information on Wikipedia, but we can't let these situations continue to spiral out of control. At the very least, we need to be starting at a list level, such as List of characters in Pushing Daisies (which in itself needs a trim for the very minor characters). -- Ned Scott 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Trim down, merge, and redirect as plausible search terms/wikilinks to either List of Pushing Daisies episodes (for the episodes) or List of characters in Pushing Daisies (for the characters). -- saberwyn 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have a very bad tendency to quickly create unmerited articles on every detail of fictional subjects (especially television characters), and this is a good example. (For more examples, look at Template:Desperate Housewives and read some of the many character articles listed there.) Very few fictional characters, IMO, have enough real-universe context to merit their own articles (per WP:WAF), and they probably won't until at least a few decades have passed and they've found a permanent, iconic place in culture (like Mickey Mouse). As such, most of these articles become little more than fancrufty, in-universe "biographies", which is exactly what WP:WAF says they shouldn't be. As for the episodes, I'm kind of more neutral on them than the characters, but more inclined to delete. As you point out, episode articles also need real-world context, and most of them probably don't have enough. This is Wikipedia, not TV IV, so it's not necessary to create an article on every episode of every show, which we also have a tendency to do. If I had my way, any given TV show would have just two articles: one about the show itself, and one listing the episodes--and I could even do without the latter. -- Crazy Legs  KC  04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete most but spare episodes - Unlike the person above, I feel lists of episodes and articles on episodes themselves to be quite informative and necessary. At this stage however, the character articles are not needed, though I would be favorable towards their recreation a couple of series down the line (should this show ever get that far).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus Ex Machina (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Trim/merge) and redirect all to their respective list. A TV show with (at the moment) just five episodes would have major problems to establish the notability of its episodes and its characters, and this show is no exception. – sgeureka t•c 09:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All as they are all plot summaries, with no claim to notability per nom. --Gavin Collins 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Episodes Most shows of some notability have episodes listed as separate articles on Wikipedia; considering the was Pushing Daisies has been recieved so far, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be created already. As to the character pages, I admit that I like having them myself, but I'm going to give that a no vote because they seem unnecessary at this point. (I'll try and refine this argument later on; I'm tired at the moment. I apologize for any incoherency in this.) VZG 10:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep on episodes. Weak Keep on characters, in keeping with common (although controversial) practice with most TV shows on wikipedia.  The fact is that wikipedia has become a commonly visited source for reliable episode and character guides, including links to further information.  In some cases, such as Arrested Development, the episode and character articles are among the best available information on these subjects on the net.  Heroes has an extremely detailed set of character and episode articles whose appropriateness have been unquestioned and even hotly debated on certain points of content, and that was the case very shortly after its debut.  In fact, that show has an entire WikiProject devoted to it.  Considering the critical praise that "Pushing Daisies" has received and its status as the most significant new show of the current season, I find the patent deletion of all of these articles (especially the episode ones, but the character ones as well) to be unjustified and wildly inconsistent with the most common practice on wikipedia in this medium and area.  I agree that all of them need to be rewritten and better cited for quality.  As time goes on, shows obtain their own wikias, which can take the place of wikipedia articles, but the fact is that wikipedia has become a trusted source for information on television series, including characters and episodes, whether the puritans like it or not. -- MahlerFan 13:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Common practice is not always a good indication of how things should be done, nor does the popularity of a show indicate how things should be done. The rationale here is that excessive plot summary needs real world information. Given how easy it is for fictional articles to get out of control (in raw numbers), we are less likely to keep the plot summary around "just in case" there's real world information if we don't have a good reason to believe it exists. Especially with new articles such as these, since the time invested in them is much less than many other articles (as in, we do tend to be a little bit more forgiving of the article that have been here a long while, but we are quick to put out small fires). -- Ned Scott 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave Them Alone These various articles are starting points to make Pushing Daisies have a great and interactive page. The characters have already established personalities that have enough substance to create pages. As for the episodes, they've already aired, they're not going to have any new information the second time you watch them, why not have them now, instead of later. I come on here to see what happned on the last episode I missed, why should I have to wait 6 months to read about an episode that aired 8 months ago! And don't tell me two sentences can fit a complete description and meaning of an episode in the list of pushing daisies episodes page. All you'd be doing is taking away a great page and just putting off your "problems" for later. - theonlyone1234
 * You are right, we are removing great and useful plot summary, but Wikipedia is not the place for excessive plot summary without real-world information. A lot of game-guides, travel-guides, and how-to manuals have been deleted or moved off of Wikipedia, even though they were useful and of great quality. This is because Wikipedia has an inclusion criteria (while vague for many topics), so that the main content of Wikipedia is encyclopedic and grounded in the real-world. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There should only be an article about an episode if there is "real-world context and sourced analysis" to talk about. This show already has its own wiki and is the featured show at TV IV, so any information can be retained there.  --Phirazo 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. TV IV is licensed under Creative Commons, not GFDL, so no text from Wikipedia could be transferred there verbatim. Just thought I'd point that out. -- Crazy Legs  KC  22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not verbatim perhaps, but if an individual contributor wants to write plot summaries and character biographies, TV IV is a good outlet for it. Besides, if it is all from one person, they retain the right to license text under both the GFDL and Creative Commons.  --Phirazo 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into respective articles Will (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing to indicate any sort of notability per WP:FICT. Also mainly just WP:NOT summaries. Doctorfluffy 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect all so it will be easier in the future for someone who wants to re-write them. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, not a reliable source among them. They can't prove individual notability. Axem Titanium 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep on episodes. Weak Keep on characters per User:MahlerFan. I'm a "[taking] all knowledge to be my province" kind of guy. --mordicai. 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's already a way to deal with episode articles, but I'm sure Ned knows that. At any rate, delete all of them because there is nothing needed in the history to merge that cannot be remembered. i (talk)  21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The episode articles are pure plot, and need to be deleted (as opposed to merging) to reinforce the fact that articles like this need reliable, independent, secondary sources.  The regular method of dealing with non-notable TV episodes seems to have failed here, so AfD is the only solution.  If the only "source" is the show itself, there should not be an article about it (see WP:FICT).  Same with the character articles, which have a "biography" pulled directly from the show.  Wikipedia articles should not take the place of actually watching the show, and that is all these articles do.  --Phirazo 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect all - One character list, one episode list. If at some point in future encyclopedic treatment requires that one or another character or episode be spun off into a separate article, then do it. For now none of this is necessary. Otto4711 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned above, there is a Pushing Daisies wiki on Wikia, Pushingdaisies. The main author of the articles is the same user on the PD Wiki, (1, 2) so both Wikipedia's and PD Wiki's copies appear to be GFDL compliant. It's also one of the better external wikis that I've seen. I'm sure that some of this will have a home here on Wikipedia, but it's also good to know that this information does have a home, and it won't be lost. -- Ned Scott 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom's rationale; then create redirects as was previously done. These are non-notable and the characters and episodes are better covered in a list format. They also seem to be well covered at wikia, so interested editors should work there. --Jack Merridew 08:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All I'm actually a big fan of this show, but stuff like this violates WP:WAP, WP:Plot, And WP:N. It really is starting to bother me that every little piece of current pop culture is turning into ti's own little wiki on here. Seriosly 5 years from now no one is going to care about any of this crap. Even characters with long histories suffere form this. Look at some of the comic book articles.  Every storyline from the past 3 years covered in minor detail, while the rest of history is ignored. Ridernyc 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on that, not really related to overall discussion: For comic books, that may be (in part) because a lot of the old history is being wiped clean. It can be hard to tell what is and what isn't canon for a character now. VZG 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep episodes per VZG and MahlerFan; keep characters per MahlerFan. Timeineurope 11:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim, Merge, Redirect pre Saberwyn, no reliable secondary sources and the episode artiles clearly violate WP:NOT. No prejudice against recreation should sources become available later. Stardust8212 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep episodes, keep characters as per MahlerFan. I honestly don't see what harm this is doing to anyone and it's a useful source of information. If they have to go, then I'm in favour of bringing them back once enough secondary sources have been developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Six (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, people worked their asses off on these, and they're quality articles and follow guidelines well. Articles on characters and episodes of TV series are common and accepted by consensus.  I'm completely baffled to see someone single these out, especially given how good an example they are of what these types of articles should be, for start class.  They'll get more sourcing, less in-universe and more neutral, tighter plot, etc.  They're a month old.  Wikipedia is not paper, and these articles are not "fires".  -- AvatarMN 07:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Participants should read arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:EFFORT, WP:NOHARM, and WP:USEFUL come to mind. shoy  (words words) 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If those guidelines were always followed, I don't think Wikipedia could thrive. If articles were deleted without any regard to precedent and hard work, and came down to opinion about whether the people involved in the AFD disregarded whether they were harmless or useful (such findings can only be opinion).  Why would someone nominate an article for deletion based on it having a long plot synopsis, instead of trim the plot?  Why does notability on a TV show that 8-10 million people watch a week have to be established by whether Time magazine will talk about it, so we can source them?  The episodes of a television show ought to be the only thing you need to reference re: information about them, because that's largely all there is to say about them.  If you can bring it into the real world more, great, but how are you going to do that when the article's been deleted, unless you've got the time and interest to write something that's been written and deleted before.  How many good creative editors have been driven away by the rules-driven editors?  Wikipedia couldn't work without both of them, and I think it's bad faith for one type to screw the other like this.  Give it time, your concerns will be addressed as the articles are built upon.  Don't be destructive.  -- AvatarMN 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What you're suggesting (sourcing only the episodes themselves) runs contrary to a lot of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and cites what reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject instead of what Wikipedia editors think of the subject. Notability has nothing to do with how popular a subject is, only its coverage by reliable sources. And information from a page that gets deleted isn't lost forever, the page history still exists in the servers, and most admins will restore a copy to your userspace so you can work on it if you ask nicely. shoy  (words words) 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To add to what Shoy just said, it's also important to remember that we want sources so we have real-world information. You simply don't have real-world information from the episode itself, so you wouldn't be able to use the episode as a source for what we are asking. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy can be very contradictive (not to mention that Wikipedia as it exists can be very misleading about policy). One of the pillars is that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.  I think this rule can be interpereted to end all deletionism unless an article is doing harm, or something.  There can be no question in the mind of anyone interested in Pushing Dasies and many television fans that these articles improve Wikipedia.  And the rules fans ought to understand that an article that's a month old has a decent chance of being brought in line with the precious rules if they just butt out.  I don't understand the appeal of being a destructive killjoy, and quoting guidelines to support yourself.  Especially if an admin will undo an article deletion because someone wants to work on it... if that happens, then why would you want to delete an article?  Leave it, and it'll get worked on.  Delete it, and... it could still be worked on.  Why bother, then?  -- AvatarMN 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed the part where we pointed out that these articles were actually created on an external wiki, and will continue to exist there. Regardless of how much value you or I feel these articles have, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world. Wikipedia is not a fansite. And no, IARs does not apply here simply because you want it to. IARs exists for those unexpected times, when we didn't anticipate a certain scenario or other things to that extent. This is not something we just threw together guessed about, these are situations that are highly problematic, and they do not tend to get better with time.


 * The reason these things are policy and guidelines is because they have consensus support, and they follow Foundation policies about sources and original research. We have good reasons for this, none of which are about hating or liking shows. Most of us who support the fictional guidelines are huge fans of fiction, which is how we got involved in the first place. We don't do it because it's appealing, we do it because it keeps the far more important topics about fiction focused, instead of being lost in a sea of plot summary.


 * If you want to know what happens in a show, then you need to watch the show. If you want to know the story behind the show, the story of the production and the cast and crew, or how the world responded and interacted with the show, come to Wikipedia. We'll still give the basic plot summary, and sometimes a little bit more when it's unique or complex, but without real world information, we avoid the extreme details. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's on an external wiki doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia, or my arguments. And WP:IAR doesn't mean what you said it meant, just because you want it to.  It says "if it improves Wikipedia", and anyone who wants to read these articles will find it an improvement for them to be there over them not being there.  Anyone who doesn't want to, can not read them.  These articles don't have any effect on the focus of other articles.  And if the fact that these types of articles exist, and will always be created, and re-created isn't consensus on the suitability of their existence, I don't know what is.  -- AvatarMN 10:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per all of the above concerns. NHRHS2010  talk  02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Very strong delete. Serves no purpose whatsoever. Ryoung122 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I assure you, the articles have been used. It this argument assuming bad faith?  -- AvatarMN 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Somewhat early in the day to be splitting the series article off into sub-articles, given the lack of real world info and dubious notability of the characters (a dog???). This isn't a fan Wiki. --Turnipface 09:31, 10 November 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.