Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Fringe)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot (Fringe)

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

Unnotable pilot episode of a series that has only aired a single episode. Adds absolutely nothing that is not already in the main article, except an excessively long plot in violation of WP:MOSTV. This article completely fails WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:N, and WP:EPISODE. The pilot has not received significant coverage apart from the series as a whole (such as it is with the series being all of two episodes) and the main article is barely above a stub, negating claims of it being a "spin out". It being the "most expensive pilot" made to date does not make it notable. That's a temporary notability and by itself is not that significant. Note: I withdrew the original AfD as it focused more on dealing with the two articles than on the actual issues of whether either article should exist. Both articles have since been merged, and the single article is now the focus of this AfD. The original participants of the first AfD have been notified to allow them to revisit the issue with the confusion out of the way. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose (Keep) - 1. It's episode of one of the most publicised series of the season, and is being covered by majority of media. 2. The article is in its nascent needs time to be developed, it'd to premature to say that the notability is temporary, considering the very fact that the series has barely started. 3. The series has been signed on by multiple episodes, as can be confirmed from http://foxflash.com/ If I'm allowed to mention this here, even Lost's pilot was considered for a possible AfD at one stage. It went on to become GA nominee. LeaveSleaves (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE Through conversations with LeaveSleaves on his talk page, and with understanding his discussion immediately above this note, it must be clarified that his "Strong Oppose" is a "Keep". His is opposed to the deletion, not the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAELQ. 05:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Struck. Been handled.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * None of that make it notable. Being an episode of a notable series has already been well established to not make it notable. The notability of the series doesn't convey to the episode, it must have notability by its own significant coverage. And being signed for multiple episodes again speaks to the series, not the episode alone. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, but you should feel free to suppy the specific wording of that interpretation, if you want from our policies and guidelines, Collectonian. As have been pointed out to you no less than a half-dozen times, the article is notable in that it is the most expensive pilot episode in television history (displacing another one of Abrams' creations, Lost). Is this refusing to get the point, or what?- Hexhand (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is NOT notable for being the most expensive pilot episode in television history. That is the point. That is not a criteria in WP:N nor WP:EPISODE. Significant coverage of the pilot itself is, which no one has actually provided beyond the spattering of reviews. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As more than a few sources speak directly to the pilot episode (and not the series), that coveres the problems of both notability and wp:episode. To the latter criteria, the process has been followed: there is the series article, the list of episodes article and the episode article. The article isn't - and to my assessment never has been - in-universe. Was there some other part of this criteria you were addressing? - Hexhand (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep (no merge) - for the reasons noted above by LeavesSleaves and myself in both this and the previously aborted AfD nom'd by the same user. - Hexhand (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note to reviewing admins, Hexhand attemped to deliberately redirect AfD discussion to the closed AfD by changing the template on the page. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did not. - Hexhand (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete - Looking at the sources I only see one that is about this episode. The rest are about the series. There is no mention in the article about it being the most expensive pilot. Likewise, the ghits are mostly about the series and I see little discussion on the pilot other than it was leaked on the internet before airing. Delete as non-notable episode.  Gtstricky Talk or C 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's for notability. The reviews for episode:, (might require free login), , , , , , , . Each of the reviews discuss plotline, and for obvious reasons the series, since it's first episode and would be a prelude to how the series would develop. Also some of the interviews discussing development , ,.
 * Here's another one (from Popular Mechanics). - Hexhand (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * works for me.  Gtstricky Talk or C 17:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep multiple reliable independent non-trivial sources prove notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable per sources. Closing admin should take into consideration the multiple keep arguments in the aborted AFD in the event these editors are not able to restate their case. 23skidoo (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Merge to Fringe (TV series). Let's head this off at the pass... as each subsequent episode will have fans creating articles episode by episode and we'll be back at AfD again and again. The pilot is THE PILOT, and should thus head the (soon-to-be) later list of episodes that will (inevitably) wish to have their own articles. Keeping the information all together is the most encyclopedic way to handle this. The synopsis should then be trimmed accordingly after the merge. Precedent exists on Wikipedia for this action... and should molify both keeps and delete. Collectonion is correct that there is not enough individual coverage for this specific pilot episode, as most of the listed sources are not pilot-specific, but there is for the series as a whole, and that's where this one belongs.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * List of Fringe episodes might be a better redirect but based on the sources mentioned above, especially the popular mechanics article that discusses the realism (or lack of), I think it now merits its own article.  Gtstricky Talk or C 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had thought about a redirect to that barren list... but the article has a lot of pilot-specific information that could not then be included. By merging to the series in a section about the show's beginnings, we keep the informations which lead naturally into the article about the series itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that the series article becomes all about the pilot, which has two handfuls of citations of its own. Merging the pilot article into the series article bloats the latter with info specific to the pilot. - Hexhand (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable enough. Needs work but doesn't need to be deleted. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, appears to be notable enough.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As in the last AfD, I agree with Collectonian that the summary needs to be shortened. I don't have as much of a problem with individual articles on pilot episodes, so I don't necessarily have a problem with this article, as it does seem to receive some note. That said, it should be made clear that if/when this AfD is closed as keep, the decision is absolutely not a pass to create more episode articles without, at the very least, the same quality of coverage and sources. Interested editors should instead devote time to editing and building a neutral, verified and original research-free list of episodes page. As a side note to something brought up in the past AfD, Image:Fringe leaf.jpg almost certainly does not have a valid rationale; the image has nothing directly to do with the episode, and therefore does not meet NFCC. seresin ( ¡? )  23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Was that image part of the pilot or its promotion?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's a pain in the tucchus to find responses in the edit page! The image was part of the promotion. As the image is the first of several making up the mythology of the series (similar to Lost, Heroes and a few others which escape me at this late hour). Maybe I am misinterpreting image usage here, but if the image is expressly discussed in the article, then it serves us well to display that image, so as to coordinate better with the text. - Hexhand (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:EPISODE applies if the article meets notability standards. This particular episode does have enough independent coverage on the episode since it was famous for being so expensive, so my opinion is that it meets the notability criteria. My comments don't necessarily apply to subsequent series episodes. I appreciate that I was notified as a commenter in the previous AFD discussion!  Royal broil  00:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and MergeLeave a redirect in place and merge with main series article. Note folks, this is not a delete. This pilot is not notable in itself. An article on every episode of a TV series is not justified and this is such a case. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: We aren't talking about seeking out an article for every episode (as would appear to be the mad goal of the Doctor Who wikiproject), Rlevse. We are talking about this pilot article. The pilot article is the introduction to the program; not every pilot is worthwhile (read: notable), but this one seems to have garnered a lot more specific comment than, say, G-Force or Joey. We aren't here to determine what's good or bad tv; if we think its notable (and it appears it is), it gets an article. - Hexhand (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per my multiple arguments above. LeaveSleaves (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking double vote, you've already voted "strong oppose" to the delete/merge suggestion above. Dreadstar †  03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Fringe (TV Series), this is a single episode in a new series, and does not seem at all notable on its own, Wikipedia does not have articles on every single pilot. Per EPISODE, I do not see any "out of universe context" or content that shows the work's "achievement, impact or historical significance"...as a matter of fact, it appears to be somewhat derivative of The X-Files. Even per the article, the pilot received only "mixed" reviews, most of them seeming to be negative.   What exactly is so notable about this particular pilot?  Even if it is indeed "the most expensive pilot produced" to date, this is insufficient to establish notability.  Dreadstar  †  02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment / Question Is it "most expensive" of all time, when reflecting adjustments for inflation compared to all pilots done anywhere at any time? And no matter the answer, I have yet to see a source that shows that throwing money at something as making that something notable... and I am looking.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into that, I was wondering about it too. And if it is true, then the second paragraph of the Pilot (Lost) lead section needs to be adjusted in this regard as well. Dreadstar  †  03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, were you asking for a citation where it has been called the most expensive television pilot ever made? There are two such citations in the article itself. As for the most expensive in adjusted dollars, I don't think that the assessments of such were taking a encompassing approach. Remember, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.
 * And I was looking at the Lost series and pilot articles as well. No one is saying that this fact all by itself establishes notability, but there are enough citable references to the pilot (not just the series) that allow us to expand such an article with greater ease than other pilot episode articles. I think that's a good thing, right? - Hexhand (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is an important question. Sayings its the "most expensive" if that's not including inflation means it is only the "most expensive" within its own time, rather than over all. Its much like with film articles. We don't call a film the top grossing film of all time without counting for inflation first. However, in the absence of any sources contradicting the claim, I think we have to take it at face value. That said, I still do not think it establishes any notability to the episode at all, it is just an interesting element of the series that it has a high budget (though not the highest budget ever overall, an honor belonging to one of CBS's new series). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, we aren't using the expense as the sole guiding light of notability, Collectonian; its just the cherry on the notability cake. There are enough reviewers weighing in specifically on the pilot itself (not just the series). - Hexhand (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the reviews and production section seem to concern the pilot episode, not the whole series. It is the series article that needs work, which it will get as the show continues.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  06:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not merge The coverage of this episode individually in reliable sources shown in the production, ratings and reception sections establishes it's notability with coverage which is not in universe. To quote from WP:Episode episodes should have coverage of 'achievements, impact or historical significance'. The ratings and reception sections clearly show this - it does not matter whether this impact is positive, negative or mixed, it just has to show there is an impact. This coverage is far better shown in a single article than in an article on the list of episodes or the series article where it would either give undue weight to the pilot episode or we would lose some good content. Davewild (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per comments above. -- Chuq (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per comments above. Also is expected to evolve and Pilot will be significant in its own right. KymFarnik (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the page satisfies the different notability requirements to exist. though it needs serious clean up (but I'll put that on the article talk page).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge and redirect. Episodecruft is a plague, the encyclopaedic content of this is that the pilot was a pilot for the series, the plot summary / episode guide stuff belongs on a fan-wiki somewhere. The fact that this was premiered only days ago is a strong indication that we have no idea of proper historical significance yet, obsessive interest generated by hype is not of any use to us. It's very hard to say that the pilot is significant indpeendent of the series because at this point the pilot pretty much is the series. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be a very neutral evaluation of the article, Guy. If you wish to alter our policy on what media we prefer to not have articles on, The place to do that is over yonder. My understanding of AfD is to evaluate the merits of the article nominated, not its role as a contributing factor in the Decline of Western Civ. :) - Hexhand (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I personally don't like the fact that we have an article for every episode of every TV series, but it's now a fact and there is no reason why this series should be treated any differently. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't a valid speedy keep reason, nor is it a "fact" that we have an article for every episode of every TV series. Many do not have them, and many that did have them have had them merged to episode lists. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. The only ones that tend to stand as articles are those with commentary outside the general scope of the series like, for example, this one. - Hexhand (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. It's a TV series with one episode aired so far, way too early to talk about historical significance that would justify separate episode articles.--Boffob (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Respectfully, the aspect of "historical significance" as it relates to notability is no longer considered consensus, and really can't/shouldn't be used as a criterion for retention or deletion. What is relevant are the general criteria used as per WP:NOTE:
 * "Significant coverage" - there are at least six articles (conservatively speaking) that discuss this article's subject matter in-depth (and not just the series). There are likely a lot more sources to be found.
 * "Reliable" - the aforementioned sources have editorial integrity, meet our WP:V criteria, and are generally available.
 * "Sources" - the sources are all secondary sources.
 * "Independent of the subject" - practically all of the sources used for the article are from outside the Fox media machine (self publicity as in info derived from the website for the program, etc.).
 * "Presumed" - the substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption of notability, and does not violate what Wikipedia is NOT. - Hexhand (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And while a minor point, there have been two episodes broadcast, not just one. Typically, a slate of 9-23 episodes are ordered for shows, with less for new programs and more for more established ones. - Hexhand (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep ample real-world reliable and verifiable sources about the episode to satisfy the Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, the other items that have been stated to raise the notability of this particular Pilot above others are the number of reviews and the ratings.
 * Ratings, if we look at the ratings, the article says the pilot had 9.13 million viewers, this seems to be low to try and establish notability with, for instance the rating for the pilot of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was over twice that number at 18.36 million viewers, even dedicated Fringe bloggers said the ratings weren't "spectacular, only good". According to another site, there was also disappointment over the ratings, which came in a distant second to America's Got Talent, which scored 10.537 and 12.596 million viewers and wasn't even a brand new purpotedly "notable" pilot. Virtually every comment I've read has expressed some range of disappointment rather than the elation or utter surprised disappointment that would lead to a conclusion that the ratings had "impact" or "historical significance".
 * Reviews, virtually every pilot is reviewed, that's the standard of the industry.  There seems to be nothing outstanding, either positive or negative, about the reviews or ratings on this show that would support any notable "historical significance, achievements, or impact" this pilot made.  If it later wins awards, and shows some kind of impact and any historical significance in the future, then we can consider creating a stand-alone article for this pilot.
 * If, as some of the posters above have suggested, the parent Series article Fringe (TV Series) is lacking, then the merger seems an even better idea, to improve the quality of the parent - or should the parent article be deleted? Makes no sense.
 * I'd also like to know what would make any TV pilot non-notable? That no one reviews it? Does that happen? That it doesn't meet some nebulous Nielson threshold? By some of the logic above, then every single pilot should have its own article...unless there are pilots that aren't reviewed or receive a zero Nielson rating..which actually seems notable unto itself...this situation is very odd and needs some clarification. Dreadstar  †  21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support keeping any such episode that meets the two standards of firstly the generally accepted main Notability Guideline - WP:Notability - i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources about that episode itself, and secondly that it has coverage of the episode that is not all in universe, thus not failing WP:NOT - i.e. the content is not just the plot of the episode. Per WP:NOT if articles can be written at a reasonable length without failing any of our content policies and guidelines there is no reason why we should not do so. So if most pilot episodes can get this amount of coverage then yes we should have articles on them. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)In response to Dreadstar's concerns, I've responded in kind below. I would agree with him in that the criteria of notability seem (at least to me) to sometimes have been applied irregularily, or using some elitism. I've noticed an exceptional amount of resistance to television episodic articles, most notably in the Doctor Who-related articles, where articles are attacked via IfD debates. As articles without images have a more difficult time being promoted to GA and FA, this presents a fairly clear prejudice towards these sorts of articles. I am not necessarily seeing that here, but illuminating the terrain upon which we find ourselves seems prudent. Kicking the notability of an article because it is a television article is not neutral. That said, allow me to address Dreadstar's points:
 * Re: Reviews - Dreadstar appears to be advocating an approach - and making a distinction - that we do not apply to other media. If a film is released (or even if it is only released via the internet, like 2 Girls 1 Cup), an article is usually written about it, even if the film is dreadful is worse than Highlander II or Killer Tomatoes Eat France. No one calls for such to be deleted because of bad reviews. As for the quoting of "historical significance (WP:SIGN), achievements, or impact", I've already pointed out that that particular aspect of notability has failed to achieve a consensus; we don't evaluate by that criteria.
 * Re: "merging" - what actually makes little sense sense is to merge the pilot article into the series article, as the citations used in the pilot relate specifically to the pilot, and not necessarily the series. Improvement to the series article would likely occur, either by association to a well-written episode article or greater interest generated through the season or by the episodic article itself. No one is advocating removing the series article (though, because it is worse than the current episode article, it begs the question as to why it hasn't been placed on the altar of AfD as well). Literary equalism doesn't really work; we don't rob one article to benefit another, as it at best dilutes the encyclopedic breadth and at worst robs us of two potentially Good or Featured articles.
 * Re: non-notable confusion - As I mentioned in my prefacing remarks, I agree that there seems to be a lot of wiggle room in what some people think is encyclopedic and what is not. Some want to make every episode of every tv series an article (like Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica), while others kill episode articles at every opportunity. The middle ground would seem to be to allow those articles which initiate a television series, are unusual in some way, or some other criteria that I am sure someone else will bring up after I hit ENTER.
 * The inescapable part of this argument is that the article being nominated for deletion isn't poorly written, grossly inaccurate or deceptive, or fancruft. It fulfills the criteria of most of our articles written. Why are episode articles - and pointedly, this article - being singled out for AfD? The answer, I suspect, lies outside of whether this article's actual merits and flaws. - Hexhand (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I too am baffled by the criteria that Dreadstar is trying to use to establish notability. The Notability standard is rather clear in defining a topic as notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is nothing here about how high ratings are or if some other show gets more viewers. There is nothing about the coverage received being positive. There is no requirement that a parent article be better or more comprehensive than the child, all the less relevant as the series progresses and more about the overall story arc is available. What would make any TV pilot non-notable? The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. That the show is a ripoff derivative of some other program is also moot. The notability standard is rather flexible in handling all of these circumstances, if we would only agree to abide by what it says. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Response, the answer to all the objections and "bafflement" in the posts above is simple, merely merge the information on the content of this pilot article into the main article about the show itself: Fringe (TV Series). There's no great mystery here.  Unless all television pilots deserve their own articles, there's nothing so outstanding about this particular pilot to merit a stand-alone article separate from the series article.  Dreadstar  †  02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not as experienced as some (or may be most) of the editors here, but the time I've been around I've seen a number of instances when an episode was merged with its parent articles, based squarely on notability conditions. But considering that most of the notability conditions are satisfied here, is the call of merge simply based on a paranoia of creation of more articles such as these? Because, I don't see how encouraging it is to suppress an article that has greatly expanded on number of areas. Not just the areas such as reviews and reception as it was at the start of this discussion but also in the area of production information. And as I see it, this isn't a discussion on validation of individual articles for series pilots, but this particular pilot only. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) As was noted before by myself and others, the merge would be largely ineffective, as the citations in the pilot article refer specifically to the pilot and not to the series. Other stuff exists, Dreadstar; I don't recall anyone getting absolutist, and demanding that all tv pilots be made into articles; we're talking about this one. If there are good sources and plenty of them for something interesting, then of course we should write an article about them. "(T)here's nothing so outstanding about this article" is more of a personal assessment. There are notable sources that think it had some value.
 * Let's apply your criteria to a few other articles: how about Search, Probe (Pilot), Syzygy Darklock, Angel Tompkins or Superpup. Collectively having less than four usable references between these five articles, they are practically stubs, and don't warrant articles at all, according to your criteria.
 * These articles might sound familiar to you, Dreadstar; you created them.
 * And yet, you seem to think that a well-documented, well-arranged article doesn't deserve its own article. You have clearly benefited from the idea that other stuff exists - clearly, you felt the pilot for Probe was notable enough to be an article, so it begs the question as to why others cannot benefit as well. - Hexhand (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect Agree Jzg. Concern is not whether the article is well written or not, but what is notability in terms of television. A pilot become absorbed into the series immediately, becomes  part of the series. Notability, seems to me has to be considered over time. What allows the pilot to reemerge again as memorable, to distinguish itself from all other episodes in the series? We can't include every pilot in Wikipedia as memorable. In time, if a pilot should become extraordinary, well that's another discussion. As an aside, does this discussion have to get personal?(olive (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
 * No, it doesn't. I was simply pointing out that the criteria determining what deserves to have an article and what does not appears to be somewhat subjective, and Dreadstar's assessments seemed contradictory. In retrospect, I guess it did look like I was kicking him (who knows - after the DRV mess he created, it might have been a little pointed), so I apologize for the fervor but not the example.
 * And for the nth time, no one is talking about including every pilot as memorable. I think this is coming up repeatedly either due to a discounting of television episode articles or a pedestaling of them - both opinions being essentially half-baked. Each article's inclusion in the wikipedia is on a case-by-case basis, but the point is that Other Stuff Exists. There is just and clear consideration that this well-cited article deserves to remain. As HitBull pointed out below, we have many, many episodic articles that are worse off. That this one is somewhat better than the series article is something that should be applauded, and used as an example in improving the article, not robbing Peter to pay Paul. As per NOTPAPER, we are not constrained by space, so there is space for both a series article as well as a pilot article. - Hexhand (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems like a perfectly good article, with coverage beyond a simple plot summary and numerous citations from reliable sources. I wish all TV articles were this nice. And frankly, the idea that it had "only" nine-million viewers is laughable - we have articles for movies that didn't play in front of half that many people. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean this in a literal sense. The pilot metaphorically, becomes part of the story/plotline as the series unfolds, a continuum, if the story unfolds. If not, yes, it will hopefully stand alone. Notability relies on time to distinguish what will have some staying powering terms of something being memorable . Otherwise, standards need to established for this area. I don't see Wikipedia policy/ guidelines as overarching enough to deal with this, and perhaps need amendments. Just a thought. Yeah, maybe "kicking" should be reserved for football :o) (olive (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I may have misunderstood this comment: "No, it doesn't." Sorry if I seemed to be beating a dead...or kicking a guy...or kicking a dead....Ahhh, well you know what I mean...(olive (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Kicking, as in kicking a guy for vehemently opposing the same sort of thing he was doing himself. Sorry if I was unclear. - Hexhand (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... No. "Kicking" anyone is uncivil, and uncivilized even metaphorically. I was proposing that this discussion not be personal. Everyone has an opinion and those opinions must be respected. NO one has the right to decide why or how someone argues for a particular point ... just deal with the point.(olive (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Agreed; kicking (or rather, insulting) is. Pointing out a contradictory position isn't, and shouldn't be seen as such. I think we have a right to expect a consistent argument, and we weren't being presented with one. The argument being presented by Dreadstar was that there is no notability for this article, stating that we don't need pilot episode articles. However, he created and maintains one himself, and it has far less notability (and citations) than this one. I didn't say Dreadstar was stinky or anything; I said his argument was not genuine, and pointed out why. - Hexhand (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how I got into this but .... whomever it is...saying an argument is not genuine is an opinion. We have no right to make such opinions more concrete by posting them as if they are factual. Doing so can create a slur on another's personality This is your opinion nothing more, and this is a discussion on a TV pilot for heaven's sake ... not worth uncivil comments. (olive (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
 * This will be my last post on this aspect of the discussion. I'm not saying that Dreadstar isn't entitled to a position or the right to state it. I am saying that if it is contradictory to what he practices himself (and that isn't opinion - it has been clearly delineated), I or anyone else is entitled to point that out. These discussions (are supposed to) reflect not only reflect the emergence/presence of a consensus, but to weigh the arguments being presented. I believe that when one participant doesn't practice what they preach, it dilutes the strength of that position. Again, Dreadstar seems like a nice fellow who made a small error in closing the original AfD too soon and misinterpreting policy, and was good enough to allow it to be relisted. His actions do not match his wortds offered here. Nothing more and nothing less than that. - Hexhand (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge It has like two episodes out, right? And this is the first, right?  And there is an article on the series, right? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, can you explain how this article meets merge criteria? I am looking at WP:MERGE, and the criteria reasoning for merging (Duplicate, Overlap, Text and Context) hasn't been met. The pilot is not the series, and the series is not the pilot. - Hexhand (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hexhand. Not a fair content dispute. Ottre 02:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Tons of other shows have individual pages for their episodes, cough lost cough, why not this one too? Fafnir665 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ANI posting An ANI thread related to this afd has been posted: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. it has a significant amount of production and reception content, why should it be deleted? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, personally, I think that whoever said that it isn't notable is laughable, since something made with the help of JJ Abrams (who did Lost and Alias, which is certainly notable), why should this be otherwise. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:50, 20 September 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.