Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (The West Wing)


 * 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 No consensus - here a couple sources were presented -  is the only one that comes close to addressing the notability problem. On it's own, I'm not sure it's sufficient, but it's not really addressed either way - so the "fails WP:N" argument is responded, but I can't determine whether it's successfully responded to or not. Wily D 09:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (The West Wing)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 18:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Article essentially fails WP:PLOT and does not assert notability of the subject. The only reference in the article is to an anonymous blog, which is obviously not a WP:RS. For this reason the article content was merged into The West Wing (season 1) and the article was redirected. It was restored on 9 July but no attempt has been made to improve the article to comply with any of our guidelines. The article now duplicates content from The West Wing (season 1) and there is simply no reason to keep this article. It is not linked to from The West Wing (season 1), so it essentially serves no purpose.

Some background: I went through all of The West Wing episode articles and there are about 130 that fail WP:PLOT or have serious issues that stop these articles from meeting our guidelines, including WP:N. All episodes are listed at User:AussieLegend/The West Wing for anyone who is interested. Nobody seems interested in improving any of them at all, let alone to the point where they would comply with our guidelines. There may have been a reason for the episode articles to exist in the past, as there was too much content to add to List of The West Wing episodes, but that isn't the case now. When I first started cleaning up these articles in January, only two of the seven season articles existed in addition to the main episode list. I created the season 1-5 articles and reworked the pre-existing season 6 & 7 articles, so there is plenty of space to include the plot information that exists in the episode articles, and which is generally the only encyclopaedic content in the articles. There's no reason why any of the 130 non-complying articles should continue to exist. There are some episodes that are notable and these should remain but the rest should all be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, all West Wing individual episodes are notable because all have received individual critical attention; see, for example, the ongoing episode-by-episode reviews at The A.V. Club here. (in addition to the series itself being of such cultural and historic importance as to merit such detailed coverage). And aside from notability, the deletion nomination raises only fixable problems and complaints about the current state of the article rather than its potential. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite the claim of notability in your comments, the article fails to demonstrate any notability and, based on the history of the article and the seeming unwillingness of editors to improve the article, the fixable problems are unlikely to ever be fixed. --18:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I already said, you are in error in nominating an article for deletion purely based on its current state rather than the potential of the subject. See relevant deletion policy at WP:ATD, editing policy at WP:PRESERVE, and recognized flawed deletion arguments at WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not nominating because of it's current state per se, I'm nominating it because it's redundant. The plot summary is in the season article and the notes section is essentially non-notable trivia supported by an anonymous blog. Even if we keep the trivia, that can be incorporated in the season article as the plot summary is only 135 words. WP:ATD suggests redirection as an option, and that was the one that was followed. That preserves the content in case somebody wants to make the effort to later build the article into something that actually does comply with our guidelines. Based on the article's edit history that seems highly unlikely though. I'd be quite happy for the outcome of this discussion to be redirect but, unfortunately, there is no Articles for redirection so it's necessary to come here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you link to your prior discussion with the editor that undid your redirect, a discussion on the article talk page, or at a relevant wikiproject before you started this and all the other WW episode AFDs? postdlf (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination states that content from this article was merged into another. We must therefore keep the edit history of this article to satisfy our licensing - see WP:MAD for more details. The issue of which page this content should best appear on is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and so our editing policy applies. Warden (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We keep the edit history by redirecting the article, not by keeping the article in its current, non-compliant form. I tried redirecting it, but that didn't work, which is why it is now here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD is not the right place to bring your edit wars. You don't seem to have much idea of the correct process. Please see WP:MERGE and WP:RfC. Warden (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hardly an edit war. I'd actually have to edit the article to do that and all I've done is redirected it because it was redundant. Articles for redirection would be a nice venue to have but it doesn't exist. This is the correct venue for nominating for deletion an article that I don't think needs to exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per AussieLegend. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, WP:PLOT is not a test, so cannot be passed or failed. We can't say an article "fails" WP:PLOT. Plot summaries have their place. I would agree with postdlf above that all West Wing episodes are notable. What the nominator really means, I think, is not that this episode is non-notable (which is not really a credible argument), but that it does not deserve its own article and could be adequately covered in the series article, i.e a merge. Well that is a separate discussion and this is not the place. Also please read and understand WP:NOEFFORT. There is no deadline. Mcewan (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PLOT doesn't have to be a test. It says that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works and this article is that. Therefore the article fails to meet that part of What Wikipedia is not which is a policy, not just a guideline. By advocating the retention of non-compliant articles such as this, you're effectively advocating turning Wikipedia from an encyclopaedia into nothin more than a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep unless there is consensus to merge all West Wing episode articles (or for the default to be merge, with the exception being Emmys and so on). WP doesn't necessarily need to cover individual episodes in this amount of detail, but given that we do, we're doing a disservice to the reader by leaving them wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not leaving the reader wondering what happened between the previous and subsequent episodes at all. The plot information is in the season articles so there's no loss of information and readers can actually read the summaries of all episodes in the season in the 7 season articles, instead of having to trawl through 157 episode articles, 130 of which are not up to any reasonable standard. But remember, articles aren't just for listing plot information. They're supposed to provided sourced, real-world commentary as well, and this article doesn't do that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep There have been other AfD's in place for other West Wing episodes for over a week. If they don't pass, this shouldn't pass. It's completely premature and absolutely inappropriate to be starting dozens of other AfDs until the original ones are finished. Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Having read Speedy keep I don't see how a speedy keep vote is applicable here. "Dozens" of AfDs is an exaggeration. There are a total of 11 at the moment. Articles have been nominated on a case by case basis as they have different, although similar, problems. Really, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would seem to apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had assume that there was at least another 30-40 West Wing articles that you were going to bring to AfD. Perhaps you need to explain what's so special about these 11 episodes that doesn't apply to the other 143 that you won't be bringing to AfD. Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the nomination or the thread that you've been posting to on my talk page where all is explained? The simple response is that these articles have all been merged to the season articles. The other 143 haven't. I'm not going to nominate articles before there has been a chance to merge the content. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep doesn't apply IRWolfie- (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any evidence that the topic is notable and that the article can be expanded beyond a plot. My vote can also be interpreted as redirect if you wish to keep the link. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please combine Articles_for_deletion/A_Proportional_Response and any other AFDs for episodes of this series together.  D r e a m Focus  01:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the combination suggestion, especially since there appears to be separate articles for every episode of this series. Deleting one by itself without considering the rest would be haphazard in the extreme.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep all All episodes of the series are notable, based on millions of people watching them, and they probably all got reviewed somewhere. Nothing gained by deleting them.   D r e a m Focus  01:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "they probably all got reviewed somewhere". Very convincing argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nothing gained by deleting them" - Nothing gained by keeping them either. They're redundant to the season lists. I'm yet to see any cogent argument as to how the articles provide anything more than what is in the season articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – I added this source to the article:
 * ISBN 1550224689
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 10:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great (really!) but it is just another link. It isn't used in the article at all and doesn't demonstrate how the episode is notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps consider utilizing the newly-added source as an inline citation in the article (really!) Of course, since you already want it deleted from the encyclopedia, I suppose you may not have much incentive to do so. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I don't have a copy of the book available, there's very little that can be used, as the link only lists content that is already sourceable and a brief introduction to the episode, which is also unnecessary as we already have a plot summary, both in the episode article and the season article. The link doesn't seem able to be used to expand the article at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect, which also silences the keep because you can't delete merged content votes. So, this article fails WP:NOT and doesn't specifically establish WP:Notability. Plus per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, this means there is no basis for a stand-alone episode article. – sgeureka t•c 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per sgeureka. If the only sources we have are plot summaries, there is nothing to indicate the episode has any individual notability, and no reason to believe that it is capable of being expanded in order to avoid being ineligible per WP:NOT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as required by WP:MAD. At a minimum, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (The West Wing) should redirect to The West Wing (season 1) and deletion is out of the question. CallawayRox (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MAD doesn't require speedy keep. It says that closing admins may interpret "merge and delete" votes as "merge". WP:SK indicates that speedy keep doesn't apply here. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is this at Articles For Deletion if deletion is prohibited? AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion isn't prohibited. WP:MAD is intended to supplement WP:DP, but it's not a policy or guideline. It's only an essay. If deletion was actually prohibited WP:AFD wouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Here's two more sources I added to the article. Perhaps they can be used to expand the article or verify information within it.
 * ISBN 0786424397
 * ISBN 0252030656
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 21:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per sgeureka. The article is composed pretty much entirely of plot summary, with nothing to indicate that it passes the guidelines for notability.  Even the sources that Northamerica1000 has found and added contain pretty much primarily plot information only.  The first one, it goes without saying, is just a plot summary.  The other two, it seems from looking through them, only refers to this episode in terms of plot points (ie saying that a certain character did something in this episode).  Redirecting rather than outright deleting solves the concerns about preserving the edit history.  Just because the show itself is highly notable, that does not automatically mean that every episode of the series inherits that notability without sources to show that it possesses independent notabilty, and references that refer to plot summary alone do not establish this.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per sgeureka. At present the article consists entirely of plot summary, and the sources cited also consist essentially of plot summary. Our articles should not be plot summaries per WP:NOT. The fact that article content has already been merged into another article does not mean the debate has to be closed as Keep, or that AfD is an improper venue. Hut 8.5 18:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - For good or for evil, it has become a precedent on Wikipedia to allow articles for individual episodes of a television series. This is probably something that has more business being handled through RfC rather than a skirmish over every single episode. But seriously, if nobody questions why we have an article for every single asinine episode of The Simpsons, then it's not a huge stretch to keep this. Trusilver  06:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Other stuff exists is not a blanket ban on arguing for consistency (it says ...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.). And rightly or wrongly, most TV series of roughly comparable notoriety seem to have an article per episode. Mcewan (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a cute meme. However, many such RfAs concerning deletion of individual television episodes have occurred in the past and overwhelmingly resulted in keeps. Past precedent weighs into future discussion. Trusilver  15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean "RfCs", they're not binding, and just because somebody else has chosen to ignore policies and guidelines in the past, doesn't mean we should do that here. We're not (supposed to be) lemmings. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. As much as it grieves me to see the article on such a wonderful episode go, it's not an article.  It's a plot summary, cast list and a short list of trivia.  I've seen better on a fan wiki, and clearly, no one is sufficiently invested to raise what's there to the level of a substantive article.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD is not for cleanup though. I could delete a hundred thousand shitty articles on notable subjects, never sleeping or eating, if that was the standard we applied.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm getting sick of the "AFD is not for cleanup" mantra. The article is not being nominated for cleanup. It has been nominated because it fails to meet several of our guidelines for creation of articles, WP:GNG, WP:PLOT, WP:TVEP, WP:AVOIDSPLIT and so on. It should never have been created in the first place and it's redundant to the season article so it shouldn't exist, or at least it should be redirected. There's no good reason to keep it, other than for the edit history and even that's not really required as it's only the edit history relating to the plot that we need to keep. Of course even that isn't really required, as the plot can be rewritten negating any need for the edit history at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:08, 23 July 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.