Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Library (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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Library (Seinfeld)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has been tagged for being WP:PLOTONLY since 2013. Looking it up, there's no coverage on the episode what so ever. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Through a Google search I found a review by the AV Club and an article in The Week which discusses the episode. There are also sources which discuss the creation and reception of the character Lt. Bookman from the episode (UPROXX, Interview [], Interview 2, New York Public Library tumblr). These are not enough to pass GNG on their own (some are interviews, primary, trivial, etc.), however taken together I think there is enough to pass the minimum standard for GNG. This is also not taking into account any print sources or sources from when the episode originally aired that I don't have access to (in particular reviews from when the episode aired). I'm interested if there are any users who would know of such sources; I think it is logical to think they exist. GNG is not determined by the current article quality, but by the existence of sources. Rhino131 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per the sources found by Rhino131 above. In addition I found a page of analysis of the themes of the episode in this book . While not the finest of sourcing available I think there is just enough there to pass GNG. Someone with newspapers.com access may be able to find some contemporary coverage. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good find with the book source, it's actually the best of all the sources because it's secondary and contains real analysis of the episode. Rhino131 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I haven't heard of The Week but a review and interview from The AV Club and other articles/interviews from Uproxx and especially Rolling Stone would be enough to establish GNG even without The Week & NY Public Library's Tumblr.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    15:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - reviews don't actually mean an episode is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. There's no production information, meaning that a reader looking for actual information on the topic would only get a plot, a few reviews, and that's it. Because of this, this article should be deleted, as it's information brings no value to a reader. Additionally, a more convenient plot for the episode can be found at Seinfeld_(season_3), and as reviews don't actually show notability, this article should be deleted. See also, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that discussion, but that should first be completed and the standards explicitly stated, then we can start deleting episodes that don't meet the standard. "Reviews don't show notability" is currently your opinion; get the community to agree and write a policy. Until then all these AFD's should be closed. Rhino131 (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The sources provided above are fine for establishing GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina's assertion that "reviews don't show notability" contradicts existing guidelines (WP:NFILM). — Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, it does not matter what rubbish WikiProject Television comes up with, it will ultimately have no effect since decisions made in projectspace do not override the core policy that is GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2020 (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.