Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Warehouse 13)


 * 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   merge to Warehouse 13. BJ Talk 20:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pilot (Warehouse 13)

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

Redirect to Warehouse 13, per WP:EPISODE. It is premature to create a separate article for the pilot of this new series, as the main article is relatively small and easily accommodates all of the content in this new article. The only information which really makes the episode notable is the small amount of sourced information on reception, which I have merged into the main article; a sub-article such as this one can be split out later in the unlikely event that there is an overwhelming amount of reception and production info in the main article in the future. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 00:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article has been somewhat expanded since my nomination above, and I have not added all of the material to the main article, pending resolution of this discussion.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 05:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it's notableGNews, and per WP:UNDUE all the info about it would be too much for the main article. The main article needs some work, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)'
 * One can argue that the coverage asserting notability exists only because it is a new series, and so is really just supporting notability for the series itself. If there is that much coverage of subsequent episodes, I would see no problem with a spinoff article like this, but as of now it is overkill.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * merge Looking at the section on the episode in the combined article, its un-usefully short and is a teaser. The description of a plot must include the entire plot.  (the present article doesnt do very well with pt 2 either). Whether the episode list should be split from the main article is a separate decision to the need to include content.  I can not tell whether the serious will prove major enough for that, or even more whether it will be important enough for separate episode articles. DGG (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * merge back into the main article. If the show wins an award or gets a second series, then split it out.  As it is, assuming that every episode is going to produce a good article may be optimistic.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can make this a good article if you want. I've done it with episodes that have 1/100 the sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt this article can be put together well enough to go GA, but you really can't see it's redundancy?&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The series has notability. Does this ep have notability in its own right (not just as the first ep of a new series)?  Will the next ep?  And the next?Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is notable, as we define it. That's just two independent reliable sources that discuss it in detail.  Generally these modern scifi shows actually do create enough media coverage to establish notability for every episode.  IGN provides a review for just about every ep of every newish scifi TV show, for instance.  Some other sites are almost as complete.  It remains to be seen if every ep of this show is notable, but they probably will be.    The biggest problem is finding editors who can keep up.  I was hoping to start a nice little precedent of how the episode articles should look, and if someone else came along and wanted to create one, hopefully they'd do a lot of sourcing as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As an example, check out Parks and Recreation. No one seems to care about the series page, but I think all of its episode articles are GAs (or GANs).  One could easily turn the series article into a GA by grabbing the most important parts of the episode pages, putting them in the series article, and giving it a thorough restructuring. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, the Parks episode articles are (to me) a perfect example of how just because something exists doesn't mean it should. I can certainly appreciate the dedication and thorough work of the individual fan who created them (Hunter Kahn, who is also just about the only contributor to them), and they are certainly impressive and well-crafted and within policy, but just because there are some reviews of each episode does not (to me) make them individually important enough to be explored in detail this way. You have done a lot of work to this Warehouse 13 article and added some great material during the course of this AfD; are you planning to cover each episode this way? If you are, great, I may not see the need but the information is surely of value and interest to someone; if you are not intending to create robust articles for each episode, this material should reside in the main article as a reflection of the series. I'm afraid we'll have a dozen stubs with plot summaries and ratings, waiting for expansion that may never come.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 05:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably won't create all of them, but I will do it for any that I create. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you might check out the Simpsons episode pages. They've got maybe 9 seasons up to GA, for about 200 GAs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete and redirect. Since there's only been one (1) episode, what could possibly be said here that isn't redundant with the series article? --Calton | Talk 02:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 12 July 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.