Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadows of P'Jem


 * 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 procedural keep, given ArbCom injunction on deleting such material. WjBscribe 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Shadows of P'Jem
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable TV episode, has been tagged for references for over 5 months. Article is just a an indepth plot reprise with no real world notability. Pollytyred (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Absolutely no citations. --DerRichter (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The episode itself is a primary source. Cburnett (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't know what original research is. Cburnett (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, no valid deletion argument presented. Lack of references is not a valid reason to delete as we'd be deleting articles by the bucket fulls.  Cburnett (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isn't there a centralised policy on episodes by now? If there isn't then Keep. I don't see why we should disappoint the 60% of our readership that's Trekkies. (Sorry, Trekkers.) Relata refero (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Are you going to tag every episode for deletion? Every Trek episode has an entry. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, an unremarkable episode of the series with no wide notability. Lankiveil (complaints 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep Part of a coordinated series of articles with nearly a hundred items, concerning a series that ran on UPN for four years; it is part of the coverage of a larger entity, a television series, that is collectively notable. I would suggest, however, that a consideration of the entire set of articles in light of Wikipedia's Television episodes guidelines is in order, in particular, the subsection What a page should contain. I argue that as a class these articles are worthy of improvement and should be improved. Cherry-picking individual articles of the set for deletion only serves to make the overall presentation incomplete. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Begrudged Speedy Keep per Col. Warden. JuJube (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep anyway. I've added a rating, sourced from the official site, and further info on significance for plot development in later seasons. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the article may have been lacking when it was originally nominated, this one has enough sources and "real world" information (such as the critical reception of the episode, and its role in the continuity of the series) to meet the low threshhold of notability for a TV episode. I'm glad to see a crackdown on TV episode articles, which had gotten way out of hand; I'm a strong beleiver in the idea that most such articles should stay up only for awhile, then taken down again after an editor has learned from the experience, especially since the deleted articles will resurface in the future.  However, there are circumstances in which an episode can be notable, and this one passes. Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for the duration of the arbitration case as per the injunction at Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Davewild has this exactly right-- the article stays for the duration of the arbitration case, meaning that a ruling on "keep" or "delete" should be made after that process finishes. I'm not sure that anyone was made aware of the "halt to activities" until Colonel Warden brought it to our attention, so don't worry, nominator... your "violation" will not be punished (sounds pretty scary though, doesn't it?).  Rather than a speedy keep, I think that ultimately, this will be relisted (along with all the comments made here) after a decision is made. Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Aside from the arbcom injunction, Star Trek episodes are inherently notable and to pick and choose which Star Trek episodes to keep requires WP:NPOV violation. My speedy keep opinion stands regardless of Arbcom decision. 23skidoo (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.