Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bet (Seinfeld)


 * 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 Seinfeld (season 2). redirect, any sourced content can be merged at editor discretion Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bet (Seinfeld)

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

No secondary sources found at all. Every source is from the DVD commentary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge All these Seinfeld episodes can be summarized in articles for the individual seasons, no reason whatsoever to have hundreds of episode articles that will never be more than stubs. L0b0t (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - They're all notable, although it may take a lexisnexis account to prove it. You're barking up the wrong tree. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple of small refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt there's anything on Lexis about this. It's an unfinished episode. It's quite possible that no one outside the show's staff knew about it until the DVDs were released. Zagalejo^^^ 07:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, or else Merge with Seinfeld (season 2). DVD commentaries are widely considered acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. This seems like an interesting piece of Seinfeld history; it would be a shame to get rid of the information entirely. Zagalejo^^^ 07:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge It should fit in at the end of the Season Two article; we shouldn't delete all of the information, as Zagalejo said. Hardtofindaname 08:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LOSE, folks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the primary author of this article, I don't know if I can participate in this discussion. I can say that I contacted (who has access to LexisNexis) for primary sources, but, because he is on vacation, he won't be able to get them until next week. If this discussion cannot be postponed until then, I have no problem with merging the article into "The Phone Message". However, I do not agree with L0b0t on deleting all seinfeld episode articles, as The Simpsons and House and Lost and many, many others have individual episode articles, some of which are even FAs or GAs.-- Music  26/  11  11:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Some episodes do get sufficient third-party coverage to warrant a separate article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to postpone the deletion discussion for a week? Or does somebody here maybe have access to LexisNexis?-- Music 26/  11  12:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DOSPAGWYA, peeps. Anyway, you're ignoring the other part of my argument. Information sourced to DVD extras is widely deemed acceptable on Wikipedia, so I see no reason why we can't keep this somewhere. I don't know if it really deserves its own article, but some of this is definitely salvageable as part of a larger article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - It'd be a real disservice to the encyclopedia to drop this one. It's already well sourced as it is, and it's too early, and as the author points up above, the are already efforts underway to get secondary sources to strengthen it further. There is no deadline for those improvements, so to delete the article before those efforts can be finished would be unfair and not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to an article listing various episodes. This subject of this article, no matter how well sourced, lacks any kind of popular awareness or notability. It was a bump on the road of Seinfeld, and nobody but DVD viewers, Lexis readers and some show staff know that it exists. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument smacks of WP:IDONTKNOWIT to me... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  14:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So let's see the secondary sources confirming its notability... Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, plans were in the works to do just that before this AFD even started, but it can't happen until the upcoming Monday at the earliest...


 * Delete or Merge (i) Whereas DVD commentaries might be acceptable as supporting sources, I don't think one may write entire article based only on those. (ii) Unaired episode, low notability. Materialscientist (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is merged with "The Phone Message", the production info could just be copy-pasted, and the plot could be summarized. Here's an example (bottom of the page).-- Music 26/  11  11:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Clearly enough info to warrant an article, most The Simpsons articles rely heavily on DVD commentaries and such, no difference here.  The Flash  {talk} 23:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those Simpsons episodes were broadcast. Huge difference between "seen by millions" and "seen by nobody because it was never filmed." Binksternet (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually think a television episode that couldn't air because of a controversial topic would be more notable than a typical, nondescript episode that did... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  14:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were as notable as you claim then independent, reliable sources should have already written about it, we would have more than a primary source in the article & we would not be here @ AFD. L0b0t (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, plans were in the works to do just that before this AFD even started, but it can't happen until the upcoming Monday at the earliest... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Are the bookstores, libraries, and the internet closed on the weekend?  If the sources are so obscure that waiting until the workweek sees some magic oracle open is the only way to access them then the notability of the subject is insufficient for inlclusion . L0b0t (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the rush? If the editors who want to do this need time (perhaps for personal reasons) why is that a problem?  And even if the sources are obscure, that doesn't make them irrelevant or inappropriate under WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I searced for the episode on NewsBank (basically the same as LexisNexis) and found no mentions at all. If no more sources can be found, I vote merge.  The left orium  20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge unless sources can be found (after giving some time for editors to look for sources) - There were a number of books and magazines that discussed every episode of Seinfeld during its run, including this one. Somewhere in my attic is an Entertainment Weekly special that did just that.  So the episode meets WP:N and should be kept.  In any case, having all the information on each episode in each season article would make the season articles overly long. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had my episodes mixed up; changed !vote accordingly. Rlendog (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Seinfeld (Season 2). LargoLarry (talk) 13:40, 19 August 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.