Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil of the Future 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 Redirect all to List of Phil of the Future episodes, again there is no need for an article, if most of the info already in the parent page and again all those episode articles can not be deleted because of the GFDL. Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Cheatin' Heart (Phil of the Future episode)


AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not an episode guide. The only content in these articles is a plot summary and trivia, both considered inappropriate on their own. This also fails WP:EPISODE (and WP:FICT for that matter) for lack of "secondary sources about individual episodes". I'd also like to note that these episodes are also summarized at List_of_Phil_of_the_Future_episodes Corpx 08:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The TV show isn't notable enough for this depth of coverage. You missed a few, as well. MER-C 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the rest should be deleted too, with two exceptions. The episodes "Broadcast Blues" and "Not-So-Great Great Great Grandpa" have won independent awards, as I explained below. --Smtomak 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. Episode articles for shows that have been broadcast are given notability per ample precedent on Wikipedia.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:EPISODE which says "..it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available." The ones of these I looked at have no secondary sources, because these episodes, unlike, say selected episodes of Star Trek or Twilight Zone or Seinfeld, have not had substantial coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. There is a list of episodes, which is sufficient to give the general plot of each episode. Edison 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all per WP:EPISODE because it is unreasonable to mass-nominate TV episode articles, some of which may be in compliance with policy and guidelines. No prejudice to nominating individual episodes for deletion but I would prefer merge and redirect. Otto4711 16:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But these are all the same though. None of them have have any content other than plot summary and trivia Corpx 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just boldly redirect them to a list article, then? Otto4711 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I again agree with a keep all per Otto4711. Plus, why the repeated leap to relist articles for deletion that have been voted as keep?  --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all per WP:EPISODE --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:EPISODE does this qualify under? Corpx 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:EPISODE. Yet another television show that is simply not notable enough to have this kind of detail on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not TV Guide. -- Charlene 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:EPISODE. Episodes of notable shows are worthy of their own articles.  Far too much detail to merge into the show's article. --Oakshade 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:EPISODE says "if there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes". There are no secondary sources that mention these episodes. Corpx 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait for consensus on the general issue The varied opinions here show there is no consensus on the general subject of whether there should be individual episode articles, and on what the bar should be. Looking at a few--and I find I am glad never to have seen the original--not all of them actually do have plot summaries.  Alternatively, merge into articles for individual seasons. DGG (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why wait? Just vote to Delete all (or keep all), tally the votes and see whether it gets to stay in the fraternity house. I like "Phil of the Future", a very interesting, well-written and acted, 30 minute science fiction show.  But do we really need an article for each episode?  We may want them, but do we need them?  Mandsford 01:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all First of all, precedent is not a valid argument because consensus can change. Secondly, what is it about the episodes that gives them nobility? Notability is not inherited for a good reason. Thirdly, I would be o-kay for some shows to have an article on every episodes like dramas where every episode has an effect on the rest, but most comedies don't have that. None of the episodes of this show have shown why they deserve to have their own articles. The Placebo Effect 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NOT The Placebo Effect 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps it is time for a more radical discussion on whether or not W'pedia wants to carry episode summaries, or whether these would be better hived off into fan-edited show-specific wikis, which could then be linked to from the show's W'pedia page. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTE says that articles should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (This is again rehashed in WP:EPISODE). These episodes dont pass that bar. Corpx 07:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to List of Phil of the Future episodes. Individual episodes are not notable enough for their own articles. In cases where a specific episode has gained notability, that specific episode can have an article. --OnoremDil 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All - Two episodes of Phil of the Future actually have won awards which make them notable imho, but neither of these have articles listed for deletion here. The notable episodes "Broadcast Blues" and "Not-So-Great Great Great Grandpa" should be kept and expanded, but the episodes listed above are probably all non-notable. Smtomak 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - I would accept a compromise merging the information into List of Phil of the Future episodes with the understanding that the synopses will be trimmed down to a short paragraph each, though this may make the article unnecessarily long. Smtomak 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There seems to be two points here which everyone is dancing around, rather than addressing headon: (1) Should Wikipedia have an article on every episode of every television series & (2) What is a "notable" television episode? My gut answer to (1) is no, simply because in many cases, the information no longer exists, & where it does, the editor would be treading uncomfortably close to original research. As for (2), "notable" is a bad measure to use in any case; rather, I think it needs to be decided whether the default for television series is to have separate articles for each episode or not, then decide whether "Phil of the Future" meets or fails that criteria. Until that is decided, my opinion is that this AfD should be tabled -- & any future ones on this & related articles. -- llywrch 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is an essential criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Phil of the Future is a notable TV show, as it has many followers, it has been discussed in independent media sources, and it has even won a few awards. However, not every episode is notable, just as not every chapter in a notable book is itself notable. Some may be, and those deserve articles. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of plot summaries, and this kind of information is not encyclopedic. --Smtomak 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting: I was unaware that Notability has the same level of importance as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV & WP:3RR; last I heard, "notability" was just another way of saying "I never heard of it", and its use without an explanation is strongly deprecated. However, I wonder which edit war led to adding that clause at WP:NOT. Nevertheless, speaking as someone who has never heard of this television show (& I probably wouldn't enjoy it had I watched an episode or two), much of what I've read here so far arguing for its deletion are either paraphrases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or wikilawyering: none of what has been written explains to a relatively objective (& more-or-less uninvolved -- I only came here because of the link at  Community Portal) person like me why this article should be deleted or kept. Many articles on television program episodes begin as simple plot summaries, yet later grow into more rounded and complete articles. I don't see that anyone has addressed that possibility other than to claim that this show has never been discussed in independent media sources. Nor have I seen anyone either provide an argument confirming -- or denying -- Corpx's opening reasons why this episode should be deleted in their own independent words. I don't see any one has argued, for example, that this subject lacks enough substance to ever become a Featured Article.  And let me make one point clear here: I have no strong feeling in the outcome of this discussion -- delete the article, keep it, roll it up & stick up people's noses at the next Wikimania, any of those work for me -- but seeing that this is the second AfD nomination for this article, I would hope someone gives this matter enough thought to provide a solid enough argument to keep or delete this article so this will be the last time it is nominated. My points above were offered solely to make that so. -- llywrch 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has brought up WP:BLP, WP:NPOV & WP:3RR in any relevant way, I don't see how the significance of those policies compared to the notability guideline really have any bearing on this discussion. Has anyone provided an argument other than WP:ILIKEIT for keeping the article? Everyone using WP:EPISODE as a rationale for keep must have missed the following section:
 * All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, which state that:
 * "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
 * It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available.  Notability (fiction) explains this further:
 * "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance."
 * While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. (See examples listed below). Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.
 * Over time, you might find that some episodes or story-arcs have enough real-world information to warrant their own article. Such an episode can be broken out into its own page.
 * Individual episodes are not notable unless they receive coverage that makes them notable. There is nothing that stops redirects from being expanded when and if that significant coverage occurs. I, like Wikipedia, am not a crystal ball, but I'd be willing to bet that none of these 3 year old TV episodes are suddenly going to become the subject of multiple sources that makes any of them notable. --OnoremDil 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point with comparing those three guidelines to the page about notability you are quoting at me is that one can point to any one of those three by themselves (well, most of the time) as complete justification for one's action. And that's been long-observed community consensus; I don't remember any major discussion that ended with that guideline being promoted to the same level of reverence those three have. Repeated citing of this page -- as has been repeatedly done -- means nothing more than "some of us created a consensus over in a discussion on this other page, & now you have to conform to it." If a consensus makes sense, and is based on sensible arguments, then provide those arguments -- don't quote policy as if it were law. Since you appear to know this policy on notability so well, can you provide here the reasoning that led to it, & show how that reasoning is relevent to this debate? If you can do that (which is what I'm asking) not only will you win this discussion, but strengthen support for this policy. Resting an argument on the words of a policy alone only tempts the unhappy to change those words -- & weakens the intent of the policy. -- llywrch 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * AfD is not the place to debate policies and guidelines. That's what policy and guideline talk pages are for. As of now, consensus on WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE is that individual episodes need individual arguments for notability. I don't see a reason why I should have to argue against that current consensus. Also, while WP:N may not be at the level of some of the policy pages, it's not like it's some new concept that's being thrown out in the discussion. --OnoremDil 02:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC) -Bold portion added and against struck out after reply was posted.-
 * "I don't see a reason why I should have to argue against that current consensus." -- Who's asking you to do that? That would mean you agree with some of the folks in this discussion that you want to keep this article. My questions have been to get you to argue for that alleged consensus -- if that is the intent of this page you've been quoting from. -- llywrch 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK...now I'm a little confused. Are you saying that arguments made on guideline and policy pages now need to be rehashed on every AfD where someone wants to quote the guideline or policy pages? --OnoremDil 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete All - Nothing notable about any of the listed episodes. Merge basic plot information to a list as Smtomak suggested.PGWG 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would only support the mass merge if that's what it takes for a consensus. I don't have much of a problem with moving all the writer/director information (except that it isn't yet sourced), but there's already a short plot summary for each episode at List of Phil of the Future episodes. --Smtomak 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all, notable. Everyking 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How are they all notable? --Smtomak 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete all "Phil of the Future" episode articles without good sources. Fans of "Phil of the Future" could create a new wiki where they can write a detailed episode guide for the show. WP:EPISODE seems to provide a reasonable set of guidelines for Wikipedia and those guidelines correctly and clearly say that not every episode of TV shows can have a Wikipedia article. The main problem is that the only source of information about most episodes is from watching the episodes or reading promotional material (advertisements) about the show. Such sources do not provide a basis for writing a Wikipedia article, but they can provide the basis for an episode guide at another website. Fans of "Phil of the Future", please concentrate your Wikipedia editing on a FEW good encyclopedia articles about the show and then link to a detailed episode guide at another website (you could make such a guide here if you do not want to start a new wiki just for this show). --JWSchmidt 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather they write the stuff here, where people can actually find it, personally. I'm not a big fan of telling people to take their efforts elsewhere. Everyking 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for all the information on the internet. Only notable episodes - like those that have won awards or that have had important impacts on culture or society - should remain. There are plenty of other wikis for aggregating non-encyclopedic information. See WP:NOT. --Smtomak 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all per precedent. Episode articles for shows already broadcast are kept in order to maintain a minimum size in the main article. We'll be debating which branches of mathematics are "notable" pretty soon! - Bevo 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You cant compare math to fiction.  Corpx 01:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One man's trash is another's treasure, they say. And "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" ...there's plenty of space for all verifiable information - Bevo 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER states "However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." The content section below states "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article."
 * Redirect to a list of episodes and no information needs to be lost. I've yet to see any explanation about why we need the same information presented in two places. About the only things individual episode articles seem to be good for is fair use arguments and unsourced trivia and quotes sections. --OnoremDil 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:EPISODE, which none of these episodes pass. Corpx 03:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm ignoring WP:EPISODE since there's an ongoing battle over its meaning and interpretation.  Really, it's just a guideline on how Notability should be applied to television articles.  As it states, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  The episode itself is not independent of itself.  The name of a writer or director is not significant coverage; it goes in the infobox.  Without any sort of other references, an episode cannot be said to be notable.  17Drew 04:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NOT-- Sef rin gle Talk 06:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, actually, these episodes already aired. The show has been cancelled. Everyking 06:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm kind of confused. 17Drew 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Until this whole mess on episode articles can be figured out. For those of you who aren't aware, there is a big brouhaha on what should be done about episode articles. It would be unwise to do anything related to mass deletions/merge/redirects until it is settled. Personally, I would say merge, but again, this is unstable guideline territory. Addendum I would also like to note that WP:EPISODE should really not be cited for either side of this discussion. As noted before, the interpretation and application of it are currently under much debate. Try to stick to other P&G that are stable. I   (said)  (did) 10:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is also failing WP:NOTE due to "lack of significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 15:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment As of yet, nobody has provided a reason why any of the listed episodes are notable. The two episodes that have won awards are not up for deletion. An episode in a notable series is not automatically notable any more than a page in a notable book is automatically notable. Can someone who supports keeping the articles please provide an argument here? Otherwise we'll just be running in circles forever. --Smtomak 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they inherit the notability of the main article. These subarticles are an organizational technique, to keep the length of the main article within reason. - Bevo 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. An individual chapter of a book is not notable since secondary sources cover the book as a whole and not individual chapters.  Likewise, the secondary sources do not have significant coverage of these individual episodes.  17Drew 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think an individual chapter certainly could be notable, but only for the most notable books (classics). But I think this is a poor comparison to episode articles, which are aired separately and have self-contained plots. Nobody ever picks up a novel they've never read before, reads chapter 12, sets it aside for a while, then reads chapter 18, and then never reads it again, but this is common for episode viewing. A much better comparison, I think, would be to individual books in a series. Everyking 14:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These are great for a TV guide wiki, but I dont think an encyclopedia should be providing plot summaries and trivia (ew) for every TV episode. Corpx 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're veering away from what I said. Notability is whether or not there is significant coverage from secondary sources.  Just like there aren't sources that only cover one chapter of a book, there is not significant coverage of any individual episode.  17Drew 19:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and repeat, redirect and protect to a "List of episodes" article. The fact that the show is notable does not mean that every episode, character, etc., etc., from it is. In this case, I simply see no third-party source material to support these articles. We don't even need to bring notability into this, we can simply look at verifiability: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." As these are apparently not verifiable through independent, third-party sources (the episode itself ain't it, that's original research!), they must go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per User:I. Dalejenkins 19:20, 15 July 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.