Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Discovery (season 1)


 * 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 Keep. ~ GB fan 15:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery (season 1)
The article is basically listing episode content in one compact section. Besides that the article is using almost the exact same content from the main article Star Trek: Discovery (lengthly production section, reception and release). There is no reason why the compact section on episodes should have it's own article with basically the same content from the main space. Thus, I suggest to move the little unique content back to Star Trek: Discovery. There are also already for each single episode a dedicated article (which also copy the production section from the main article...), same for the cast, and there are more. This tv topic has possibly the most articles ever. Another reason is that many references are now literally six more times present, possibly affecting search engine rankings. Giving sources more weight, then they actually carry. prokaryotes (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Approve Too many articles, content fits well into main article, move unique content back to Star Trek: Discovery, delete. prokaryotes (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Editor attempting to !vote on their own submission in an attempt to vote-stack; very bad faith. --  Alex TW 11:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The attempted vote-stack above was previously struck through, and should not be counted. Per WP:AFDFORMAT: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. --  Alex TW 11:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Per reasons given at, where the editor seemed to start a discussion, then decided to move it straight here, with no legitimate reasoning other than to be annoying. They are being over-dramatic saying that the series has "possibly the most articles ever" - there are three separate episode articles on one season article that holds season-specific content. Another editor recommended that the nominating editor put forth content they believe has been duplicated so that they can mash it out together, but the nominating editor decided not to take on this good faith recommendation. --  Alex TW 11:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is List of Star Trek: Discovery characters, Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Discovery (season 1), then a single article for each episode, for each future season/episode, an additional article. Are there more? This will end up with 20+ articles just for a single tv series. Stranger Things is a single article. The main problem I have is that the content is copied several times to all these articles, which is confusing to read-lookup, and hard to update. prokaryotes (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not discussions those articles, we are discussing the Season 1 article only. That is what this AFD is for, no? That's what the discussion on the season's talk page should have been for. By listing every article, are you suggesting that we delete the parent article as well? And as I said at the previous discussion, which you so rudely snobbed in bad faith, different series require a different amount of articles. One is a one-season released-all-at-the-same-time series. The other is a weekly series that's part of a half-a-century franchise. The latter is clearly going to have more content to offer. There have been six episodes aired so far; only half of those have separate episode articles. recommended that you discuss your requests on the talk page so that we could all mash out what needs updating. Your issues are personal and are not based on any essay, guideline or policy. --  Alex TW 11:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

'''Editors, please note that the editor's comment of Another reason is that many references are now literally six more times present, possibly affecting search engine rankings. Giving sources more weight, then they actually carry was added after their original post, violation WP:REDACT. --  Alex 'TW'' 11:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Replying to this, you state that it is possibly affecting search engine rankings. Do you have any basis or proof to support this? --  Alex TW 11:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hej Alex, per WP:REDACT, I indicated the addition to the initial reasoning. One article on WP and SEO https://www.seoworks.com/01-seo-news-views/wikipedia-seo prokaryotes (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"In spite of NoFollow, Wikipedia likely contributes to a higher position in Google’s SERP, and varied SEO authorities have reported a positive impact.

The anecdotal evidence consistently reports that SEO rank improves with links from Wikipedia. We’ve found that links in Wikipedia do enhance SERP position. An article has more impact than a link, but is naturally much more difficult and time-consuming to obtain. Wikipedia is especially worth pursuing if you have a significant client that has been featured in newspapers, radio, or television, as this provides an easy hook for citations."


 * You did no such indicating, and simply started the sentence "Another reason", which can very easily be interpreted as part of the original post. Given your reverts of my attempts to fix this, you are clearly WP:NOTHERE. None of what you present will be by the deletion of a single article when your issues is with the multitude of articles that exist, and hence your reasons have no solid ground. --  Alex TW 11:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is a well referenced article easily passing WP:GNG with extra information from the main article. It is usual for a very notable series to have a lot of articles such as series, characters and episode-articles Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is very standard to have multiple articles, sometimes tens or even hundreds, for a single television series. Not to mention that this article clearly justifies its own existance. I also find it in very bad faith that the nominator chose to cut a discussion on the article short and come straight here without putting the effort in to address their concerns properly. If they believe there is too much duplicated content across the articles for this show, then why not talk about that to try amd sort it out? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is not much room for a discussion when you argue that my arguments are ridiculous. Several articles with large parts identical. None of the keep arguments made here addresses, the duplicate content issue. Besides, the rude response from some editors here makes me wonder if this requires admin attention. prokaryotes (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does require admin attention - an admin should close this ridiculous AFD that you have no basis to request where there is clear consensus not to delete the article. When someone says " If they believe there is too much duplicated content across the articles for this show, then why not talk about that to try amd sort it out?", is the best response "None of the keep arguments made here addresses, the duplicate content issue"? You are being offered to discuss this by another editor in a civil manner, something you should take heed of. --  Alex TW 12:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep definitely a worthwhile article to have, now that the series has been confirmed to return for a second season, and definitely passes WP:GNG. It is well referenced and supported with other sections and content beyond simply a cast list and episode table, which is vastly better than many season articles the TV project monitors. While I haven't given it a good look over, most likely the main article for the series could use a little bit of a trim now that content has split, but the season article should definitely stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per widespread practice for similar articles and WP:GNG. The material is well sourced, informative, and too extensive for inclusion in the main article.- MrX 12:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Should definitely clean out the considerable duplication of material that applies to the concept and creation and content universal to the series, not unique to the first season. Material that applies to the entire series goes to series article, material unique to the specific season plus short summaries of key series material goes in season article. (see, for example, many of the season articles for Law & Order franchise, that provide episode synopsis, details of guest cast, brief summary list of main cast) Jmg38 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG. This article deals with content specifically related to this first season. If it were a stand alone miniseries, I'd be inclined to support its merger with the parent article, but considering a second season has been commissioned... Besides, it is typical on Wikipedia to have a separate article for each season of a TV programme. Remember, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopaedia. IJA (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2017 (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.