Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Extra Man (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   redirect to Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1).   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Extra Man (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate that this specific episode is independently notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Episode is covered in appropriate detail at Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1), nothing here is sourced and the article's title is a highly implausible search term, so there is no need for a merge or redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See discussions for other episodes of this series here, here and here all resulting in delete. Otto4711 (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to a season article; create one if it doesn't already exist. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Had you bothered to read the nomination you would have seen that a season article already exists and that article already covers this episode in appropriate detail. No one in their right mind is going to type in this article title as a search term. Otto4711 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to season article, as the article is merely a plot summary. Traffic statistics show enough activity that it warrants being redirected to avoid confusion by readers. AP1787 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Traffic statistics do not prove that readers are finding the article through a search for its title since the stats do not indicate how the view is initiated. It is just as reasonable to believe readers are navigating to the article via the season list or navtemplate. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, traffic statistics do prove that 166 people would have been confused last month had the page not been there, regardless of how they got to that point. There's no harm in leaving a redirect back to the season article there. AP1787 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2010 (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.