Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal (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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The Journal (episode)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe that this one episode is notable for inclusion. It is a lightly sourced stub that fails WP:NTV and WP:TVEP. Yes we have individual entries for individual episodes of other TV shows but, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, that does not mean that this article needs to exist, especially since ‘’Hey Arnold’’ was not exactly huge even when it was relevant. Note that WP:TVEP states to create articles on individual episodes Only if there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes. This article only has one source. This project does not need an article about every TV series finale. Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that Hey Arnold! was not huge during its original run. It was one of Nickelodeon's top television programs at the time, was one of only three series to receive a theatrical film, and is the first of any of their classic shows to have a television revival. It is no way a minor entry in Nickelodeon's canon. Of all the episodes of this television program, one might say that this is one of the most notable. In addition to being the show's series finale, the episode famously ended on a cliffhanger that is, quite unprecedentedly, finally being resolved after fifteen years. Many other television programs that have pages on Wikipedia also have numerous episodes with their own pages. A relevant example would be the show Rugrats. It currently has seven separate episode pages active on Wikipedia. If the main issue with the article as it currently stands is that it needs more sources, then that is an issue that can be rectified. However the notability of the episode is in, my opinion, not an issue. BoogerD (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: BoogerD (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * It is completely and utterly irrelevant whether Rugrats has seven episode articles or SpongeBob SquarePants has 26 episode articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. Besides, the popularity of Hey Arnold was never much compared to the Nickelodeon juggernauts SpongeBob SquarePants and Rugrats, so it's an unfair comparison. Also that the The Jungle Movie being released 15 years after this episode is somehow unique or "unprecedented" is false. Many projects get stuck in development hell and take a long time to release; for examples see, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, Duke Nukem Forever and Smile (The Beach Boys album). Notability is still an issue. "The Journal" is also not the series finale; "Phoebe's Little Problem/Grandpa's Packard" is the final episode in actuality. Although there is now more than one reference for this article all references are still WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources reporting on the upcoming television movie. There are no secondary sources and the adding of these new primary sources seems to just be a way to WP:MASK the article's lack of notability; this is why it is unfortunate that there is no policy to discourage editors from radically altering a page before consensus can be reached through AfD. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is just an essay, so it can also be argued that it is kind of irrelevant citing an essay. WP:PG states, "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community...". Thinker78 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes OTHERSTUFF is part of WP:ATA, which is an essay, but note that WP:ESSAY says, Some [essays] are widely accepted as part of the Wikipedia gestalt, and have a significant degree of influence during discussions ("almost a guideline" examples are WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). So it is misleading and frankly ridiculous to say that a section of WP:ATA cannot be cited in AfD when someone uses one of the fallacious arguments listed in WP:ATA because it is an essay, although I do suppose that inclusionists would love it if WP:OTHERSTUFF could no longer be cited in AfDs. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you put words in my mouth that I never said. I wrote, and I quote, "it can also be argued that it is kind of irrelevant citing an essay". WP:ESSAY is just an explanatory supplement. But I agreee that any given essay can either be or not be widely accepted. So they have to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't know either what you meant with, " that a section of WP:ATA cannot be cited ". And "ridiculous" is really subjective. Thinker78 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states that “[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources…”, then it will likely meet notability requirements. The guideline thus limits the acceptable sources to those about an article’s topic, and makes no provision for sources about a related or comparable topic. WP:OTHERSTUFF is simply an explicit statement of this requirement. I agree with your general statements about essays. However, otherstuff has more force than a regular essay since it is so widely accepted and in-line with notability guidelines. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While I continue to disagree about the notability of the show and the episode, I will defer to your judgement and the argument you are making. This isn't the "hill I'm willing to die on", to use an old expression. I won't argue further. Best regards. BoogerD (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with article on Hey Arnold! Vorbee (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are of the opinion that information regarding a single episode should be included on an article that acts as an overview of the entire series? I would direct you to look at my response above. I would also continue to point out the fact that other animated series such as Dexter's Laboratory, Rugrats, The Fairly OddParents, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Ed, Edd, and Eddy, etc. You can look towards Spongebob Squarepants which has somehow managed to have separate pages for 26 episodes! My point being that if one episode of Hey Arnold! had a separate episode page it would be The Journal. This is not only due to the content of the episode and the important role it plays in the overall story of the show, not only because it acted as the series finale of the show's original run, but because it had a highly unusual production history that is concluded/resolved some 15 years later. BoogerD (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We get it, you WP:LIKE Hey Arnold, but, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see a case this is notable, and definitely don't see a case this is the only episode of the show that is notable. The merge target should be List of Hey Arnold! episodes and not the main topic page, if the result is merge. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Hey Arnold! episodes. There were a lot of sources on this episode, but almost all of the coverage consisted of the fact that the episode ended the series on a cliffhanger. From these sources, you can derive only a few sentences of content. Per WP:WHYN, this is not enough to show notability. Now its true that a lot of cartoon episodes have articles, but this is because those articles have a ton of sources talking about them in-depth, something that is absent here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I changed my vote from merge to the general Hey Arnold article to redirect to the list article. As there are a bunch of news articles referring the journal article, I believe that redirecting is better than outright deletion. I originally wanted to save the language on the production of the episode, but all of this is already covered by the Jungle Movie article (which "The Journal" description links to). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I concur that if a merge occurs that the target should be List of Hey Arnold! episodes and not Hey Arnold! I still maintain that a deletion is better though as there is not enough notable content to justify a merger. Wikipedia has enough WP:FANCRUFT already.-- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources include SyFy, LA Times, Comicsbeat, Cinemablend, and Geek.com, among many others that appear to cover the same content: the cliffhanger episode is mentioned over the years as an impetus for a movie, which was delayed for a decade and a half or so. Still, GNG is met for this episode, for its impact if not its contents. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources that mention this article, but they say nothing beyond the fact that it was a cliffhanger for The Jungle Movie. There should be a few sentences about this episode in the Jungle Movie episode, but there just isn't enough content for a stand-alone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of content: In addition to the RS'es I noted, the rest can be filled out with other materials that don't necessarily need to be online or reliable, but the cliffhanger aspect for 15 years makes it notable. It's clear that on a 'delete/not delete' spectrum, the article should not be deleted, and you agree in that you argue for it to be redirected.  But this isn't a redirect discussion it's a delete discussion, even though WP:ATD-M makes it plenty clear that merging a not-individually-notable episode (which is all the nom argues in the first place) into a parent article is strongly preferred to deletion. If/when the article is kept, I have no objection to a merge discussion, nor belief that it needs to be kept independently, but this is a boolean outcome, so keep remains my assessment of the notability of this episode as an article topic. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources on television episodes tend to be located nearly exclusively online. You will occasionally find uber famouse television episodes that get book coverage (such as A House Divided (Dallas)) but The Journal is quite clearly not one of those episodes. Its perfectly conceivable that there is a book or other offline secondary source somewhere out there covering this episode, but we need a stronger indication that these sources exist than a mere metaphysical possibility. As the article currently stands, the amount of encyclopedic information barely exceeds what can be fit into a DYK hook. This scant information exists solely because of interest in the Jungle Movie. Altogether, I just don’t think this is enough to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic may be notable because it is a cliffhanger for a subsequent movie, but the fact nonetheless seems to be that it is notable. If millions of people know it because it was a cliffhanger, that would make it fit for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. Thinker78 (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My position is that the present article contains all that can be written about this episode. The minimal coverage present exists because of and is almost solely about the episode's relation to the Jungle Movie. I agree that there is a grey zone and that this is a tough call, but I think that merging or redirecting is preferable to keeping. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the ultimate solution is to redirect then the responsible course of action is to delete the page history first and then redirect to List of Hey Arnold! episodes. If this is not done the article will be preserved in the page history and this would be problematic. An article such as this may be appropriate for a frivolous project such as Fandom powered by Wikia but is damaging to the credibility of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a serious project. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not support a delete and redirect. There is language present on the relationship of this episode to the Jungle Movie which can be used in other articles such as the list of episodes article. Per WP:R, this is a valid reason not to delete redirects (or the page history thereof). Additionally, the delete and redirect seems a bit overkill here. The relevant guideline states that it is used for "problematic", and in practice the option is not the norm for redirects. I would personally need a good reason such as copyright infringement, attack pages, thinly veiled hate speech, the constant recreation of a redirected article, etc to vote redirect and delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I spent a couple hours dwelling on the merits of keeping or deleting this article, so I will say it is a gray and complicated area, and my position is far from perfect. Per WP:GNG, I think that the topic has received somewhat significant coverage in, arguably, reliable sources  that seem to be independent of the subject; for this reason, the topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. The topic in those sources is addressed directly and somewhat in  detail. In addition, I think that the coverage doesn't seem to be a trivial mention. WP:PAGEDECIDE has several criteria, which seems to be too long to be listed here, but I think that a standalone article helps understand more the topic than a constrained table entry, as "List of Hey Arnold! episodes" is. WP:SPINOFF states, "Sometimes, when an article gets too long..., an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle... This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure." I think adding more information to this topic's entry in  "List of Hey Arnold! episodes" would be making the entry too long compared to the other entries and so, inappropriate. Therefore this would support a standalone article of the topic at hand. Thinker78 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 December 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.