Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)


 * 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 delete. I tried to delete it yesterday, but scripting problems prevented me from doing so. Remedied by User:MZMcBride. MuZemike 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - fails WP:N as there are no reliable sources that indicate that this particular episode is independently notable. PROD removed with the assertion that all deletions of every television episodes are controversial, which is not true. Merge and redirect is not necessary as the article's information is reproduced in its entirety at Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1) and Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) is an extremely improbable search term. Otto4711 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources, and this individual episode doesn't seem to therefore be notable. Skinny87 (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - You can make a GA out of this, but it will take a lexisnexis account for one so old. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't stand this show, but given that Wikipedia isn't paper, and that it's certainly a very successful show, and that this level of detail has been found appropriate for other very successful shows that have penetrated the pop culture consciousness (eg The Simpsons), I'd err in favour of keeping it. I certainly don't think it's going to harm or confuse anyone attempting to find information, and there's a good chance of it genuinely helping. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Vote changed to Delete per WP:EPISODE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete completely unnotable episode of the series. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Completely fails WP:N and WP:NOT. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as wholly unsourced to reliable secondary sources; handily fails the Notability guideline. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I removed the prod, and it seems I was right about it being controversial; controversial means that there are likely to be good faith objections, because whenever there are to a prod, the matter should be heard here if deletion is to be pursued. --at this point there are 2 keeps and 3 deletes.   DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point there are four deletes and two keeps. One keep is based on WP:WAX ("this level of detail has been found appropriate for other very successful shows") and WP:NOHARM ("I certainly don't think it's going to harm or confuse anyone...") and the other is based on the unsupported assumption that there must be sources out there somewhere. Notability requires the confirmed existence of independent reliable sources that substantially cover the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy; the best argument wins, not the most common one. And I don't think you've fairly summarised my arguments (although I'm sure you were attempting to do so in good faith and I appreciate your contribution!).  I'm not merely saying the article does no harm, I'm saying it may be positively helpful to those with an interesting in researching this bizarrely successful show, and that possibility of usefulness is not balanced against any possibility of misleading or confusing other users.  And WP:WAX refers to contrasting an article against individual other articles that may themselves require deletion - what I'm saying is that there is a clear and continuing policy of sufficiently notable shows having an entry for each and every episode, most notably The Simpsons and a great many sci fi shows.  There's no indication of that trend reversing on those shows any time soon - not one of the Simpsons episode pages are currently up for deletion - so I think it's a relevant contrast.  We allow those pages because the legacy of the show is so great and its cultural impact so significant that the level of detail is useful to go into.  I can't personally understand what makes the Law & Order shows so enduring, but they are, with no sign of abatement, and I can't see any clear reason for saying there's nothing to be gained from having individual episode pages. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that this is a vote; I was merely correcting the count offered by DGG and expanding on what I believed the rationales of the keep !voters were and why I don't agree that they justify keeping the article or overcome the arguments of those calling for deletion. There is a clear and continuing guideline regarding when individual episode articles should be created, as summarized at WP:EPISODE. Per that guideline, The order of creation should be: Series article → episode list → individual episode page, if there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes (emphasis in original). Many individual episode articles have been deleted despite the popularity or cultural impact of the series. The notability of the series does not automatically devolve to each individual episode and reliable sources are always a requirement. Most if not all episodes of The Simpsons have such sources, often sufficient sources to improve them to featured article or good article status. It is because of the existence of these independent reliable sources that all Simpsons episodes have individual articles, not because of the popularity of the program itself.
 * As noted in the nomination, the entire content of this article is available at the season 1 L&O:CI article (linked to above). Should anyone be interested in this particular episode, a search will lead them to the content either through Seizure (disambiguation) or, should they happen to search Seizure (Law & Order:Criminal Intent episode), something I find highly unlikely but not outside the realm of possibility, the deletion of this article would leave the overall episode list as the first result and the season 1 list as result number four. Otto4711 (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your polite and well-explained further argument! I was not aware of WP:EPISODE and now agree that it applies here and is contrary to my argument.  I've learned something as a result of your participation - thank you very much.  I accordingly change my vote to Delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) moved comment to the end of mine Otto4711 (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Thanks for keeping an open mind and for an enjoyable back-and-forth. Otto4711 (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, I'm not finding any secondary sources that analyze this episode. Article is a mere plot retelling. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to an appropriate list of episodes. Edward321 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 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.