Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare artifact, The importance of the Beauties of Nature


 * 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 - there is no such thing as precedent on Wikipedia, but nonetheless, the issue of whether to have an article on every episode of a TV series is mainly a question of whether it falls under 'indiscriminate information'. That question hasn't been answered by numerous centralised discussions and bulk AfDs and it certainly hasn't been answered here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rare artifact, The importance of the Beauties of Nature


Episode 208 of the Naruto anime. This is just a plot summary, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Delete as indiscriminate information. Prod tag removed, so taking to full Articles for Deletion. -- Phirazo 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC) — Phirazo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The fact that they could not easily be merged into larger articles is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, and we do not need to describe the plot of such a long work with this level of detail. The fact that these synopses are too long to merge into single articles is not a sign that they need to be placed in individual articles: it is a sign that they should be made shorter. This episode could be amply summarised in 1-2 sentences. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 11:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per WP:TVE--Gjeixs 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC) — Gjeixs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep as per Articles for deletion/Naruto Episodes. The inclusion of this episode is not indiscriminate as the nominator originally charged, as it's part of the complete and finite set of Naruto episodes who, as a whole, are notable and have survived a deletion attempt with consensus being "Keep". –Gunslinger47 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The AfD you are referring to was to delete all Naruto episode articles en masse. This is a nomination for a single article. If you want to keep this article, name some reliable, secondary sources.  Otherwise, this is original research. Also, WP:NOT specifically says Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries.  --Phirazo 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need secondary sources to say that, for example, Naruto's head disappears at time index 17:51. The primary source should be more than sufficient.  The same goes for referencing the plot.  What original research are you referring to? –Gunslinger47 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The original research is a new synthesis - the article is picking out of the episode what is important and what isn't. --Phirazo 04:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Deciding what warrants mention is a critical part of the editing process. You, yourself, are making a call about what warrants mention on Wikipedia by raising this AfD.  This is by no means "original research".  The alternative, in this case, would be to copy someone else's summary, which I'm sure violates a copyright law or two. –Gunslinger47 05:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Upon some research, I believe I see what you're getting at. After reading WP:NOT, specifically this section,
 * Plot summaries. 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, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
 * You seem to have went off on a bit of a tangent. Pay close attention to the final sentence.  The set of Naruto episodes are supplementary to the core topic of Naruto and cannot stand by themselves.  Individual episode articles are created initially for the soul purpose of indepth plot review and only because such verbose information would be unsuitable for inclusion within already bloated higher-level articles. –Gunslinger47 05:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Giejdz placed a single purpose account tag after my signature.  This is fascinating, since Giejdz's only edits are reverting mine .  Pot, kettle, black, etc. --Phirazo 04:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your user page pretty much declares straight up that this is an extra account of yours for use in protecting your anonymity during deletion debates. Your number of edits on this account is somewhat irrelevant.  I don't see why Giejdz added the template. –Gunslinger47 04:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 07:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the WP:NOT policy. Articles consisting entirely of plot information are not acceptable on Wikipedia.
 * Keep per WP:TVE and WP:NOT.
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries, and we do not need to describe the plot of such a long work with this level of detail. [...] This episode could be amply summarised in 1-2 sentences.
 * Actually, if you look at the Television Episode guidelines, the list of works following these guidelines shows that this format and level of detail is perfectly common.
 * Plot summaries. 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, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
 * Where the WP:NOT policy says "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain [...] not solely a summary of that work's plot", the work of fiction in question here is actually the whole of Naruto, not this single episode. The episode summaries are merely a small part of the 'article set' of this work of fiction (i.e. this work's article set is not solely plot summaries). So as required, they are an aspect of that larger topic. It's not unreasonable to split these into individual articles as per the WP:TVE guidelines.Crashwinder 12:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Two editors have made recommendations to keep "per WP:TVE". WP:TVE is not a guideline, it's the WikiProject Television episodes which refers editors to what it describes as "the debate on writing articles on individual television episodes." That debate is a centralized discussion which states, among other things, "Elements which are best avoided in any episode article: A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show." In other words, most of this article is devoted to content which a consensus has agreed should not be included. --Metropolitan90 15:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry about using the term 'guideline', it's just that I assumed that was the right term from the list at WP:TVE titled "TV shows currently using these guidelines". Obviously to describe each scene in detail is pointless, but if the level of detail in this article (600 words) is too much, then there is an enormous amount of material listed under WP:TVE that needs cutting. Crashwinder 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Is there 200 odd pages each details an episode, which is hard to find unless you are a fan, and even harder to find if you were a fan and not seen it for yeard, i.e forgotten it. Complete waste of resources. Put all the plot summaries on one page. scope_creep 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim to notability for this TV episode, WP:NOT a TV guide. Sandstein 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. There are episode articles for a great many shows. These articles have already survived one deleton attempt and it creates just as much clutter to individually afd each one than it does to keep them. Might as well start AfDing Star Trek episodes. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. Treima 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What are these precedents?  The AfD for all Naruto episodes isn't precedent; quite a few of the objections were about the scope of the nomination, not the articles themselves.  A TV episode article should be more than just a plot summary, for example, see Abyssinia, Henry (M*A*S*H episode).  How is this article more than just a plot summary? --Phirazo 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Major Fred C. Dobbs (M*A*S*H episode)... It's one thing to pick the penultimate episode of a season, but can you honestly say any given episode of any given series will have that kind of coverage? – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I used Abyssinia, Henry as an example of what a TV article should aspire to. Interestingly enough, Major Fred C. Dobbs (M*A*S*H episode) is notable, in a "Worst. Episode. Ever." way.  Not every episode of every TV show is notable enough to warrant it's own article, and this episode isn't up to those standards. --Phirazo 03:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what more you want on this and most of the other Naruto episode pages but it's not going to get written if you delete them. While there may not be precedent to keep, you might want to consider the precedent you will be making if you delete. 86.20.30.144 12:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as plot summary. -- Hoary 11:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment many people are voting with unfortunate haste as Horay just did above. We've attempted to explain, without argument, that that single line of WP:NOT is being misunderstood in this context.  Plot summaries in general are not forbidden, only when an article on a work of fiction contains just a plot summary and nothing else.  The work of fiction in this case, is Naruto.  This is a sub-article and is not meant to stand on its own.  It is an aspect of a larger subject, and therefor does not violate WP:NOT #7.  There are valid reasons to get rid of this article, but its being primarily a plot summary is not one of them. –Gunslinger47 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment An article should be able to stand on its own. There simply is not enough about the episode as it stands to merit an individual article.  If an article cannot stand on its own, then it should be merged (perhaps into List of Naruto episodes). --Phirazo 18:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't make an argument against sub-articles in general, do you? As an article grows in size, it is a natural and encouraged part of its development to fork off into smaller subjects which may or may not have significance outside the context of its parent article. –Gunslinger47 00:09, 22 November 2006 (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.