Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem for a Reality Show


 * 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 to List of Drawn Together episodes.  MBisanz  talk 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Requiem for a Reality Show

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

This article provides no reception information, no production information, and no citations from reliable sources. The entire article consists of plot summary and lists of inside jokes and cultural references. This is not a notable subject. Neelix (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whoa, this is very non-notable. Are you going to put the other episodes up for AfD also? Drmies (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Probably most of them, if not all. Discussions about deleting/merging them all have proven long-drawn and indecisive, so I'm trying to deal with each on an individual basis now. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am of the opinion that picking and choosing which episodes deserve AFD is a violation of WP:NPOV. Either nominate all or nominate none. In my opinion AFD is not the way to address "long-drawn and indecisive" discussions on content. That's why God invented WP:BOLD. For these reasons I cannot in good conscience cast a "vote" one way or the other. 23skidoo (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Drawn Together episodes. Nothing indicating that the episode has any independent notability. I disagree that all episodes must be nominated at once or none of them can be, because some episodes may be notable while others aren't. Otto4711 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What "discussions about deleting/merging them all have proven long-drawn and indecisive"? You mean the year-old bickering on Talk:List of Drawn Together episodes where there seemed to be a lot of opposition to merging everything to one list, against a forceful minority who seems to think that anything beyond a one sentence description of each episode violates policy? Where have you, Neelix, participated in these discussions? The types of actions exemplified by that talk page eventually resulted in an ArbCom case. But now, what are you doing to "work calmly and reasonably towards resolving [conflicts], to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate", as expected by ArbCom? How have you been "work[ing] collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question"? How is bringing episode articles to AfD, in contradiction to established guidelines, working collaboratively? As it beginning to look like to me that anyone who might have been interested in improving these articles have either been driven off the project by this type of activity, or perhaps don't know how to participate in AfD, I guess for now we must redirect and let any interested parties, if they ever dare to come back to Wikipedia, merge using content from the edit history. DHowell (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Considering the lack of professionalism and respect present in the meta-discussions previously mentioned, I have not attempted to create another. I do not presume to know that none of the episodes of this television series are individually notable; that is why I am attempting to deal with them individually, to give each its proper discussion. I believe this is the best way to "work calmly and reasonably towards resolving" this conflict, which, as has been mentioned, has been left unresolved and undiscussed for quite some time. I do not believe myself to be acting in contradiction to any guidelines; the guideline noted by DHowell suggests that AfD is appropriate in cases of unverifiable and original research. As far as I can tell, this is the case for this article. Neelix (talk) 02:58, 16 December 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.