Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Naked Truth (How I Met Your Mother) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Sources used are very questionable; they should be challenged and removed before the article is renominated. Shii (tock) 06:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Naked Truth (How I Met Your Mother)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Episode is not notable due to having no independent outside significant (emphasis intended) coverage. References used and sources exist are ratings sites. Curb Chain (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 7), preserving history. I don't really see how this can be judged other than by hunch. Here's mine. If there are sources meeting WP:GNG then they have not been used. However, the WP:TVSHOW essay (linked to from WP:GNG via WP:COMMONOUTCOMES) proposes that individual programs airing on a national network are "likely to be notable" although it goes on to say reliable sources are more definitive. List of The Simpsons episodes indicates separate articles for every episode whereas List of Friends episodes links to seasonal synopses with selected episode articles. There is no seeming policy, little guidance and variable precedent for whether such articles should exist. Thincat (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 7), not notable enough for a standalone article. Cavarrone (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Existing references meet WP:GNG, sufficient notability for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, as far as I can see the Elkhart Truth article (that is used just to source the plot) is a deadlink, so we can't judge its worth. Thefutoncritic is just a plot-and-cast listing, with nothing substantial. CBS is here a patent primary, non independent source. The only effective reference here appears to be the A.V. Club review. Cavarrone (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I may not be looking hard enought enough, but I can't even find the relevant mention of this episode in the Elkhart Truth article.Curb Chain (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the series article. A brief plot overview and episode order is fine, but it seems individual episode articles attract hopelessly trivial trivia, such as for example the entire Continuity section, which reads like a parody of stupid stuff from Wikipedia.  Actual quote: "Ted uses a yellow legal pad to write down a list of pros and cons. He previously did this in Season 3..."  Wikipedia isn't TVTropes. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is enough notability to warrant the article.  In three seconds of research, I found an IGN review of the episode not included in the article, which qualifies as significant coverage.  Because there is no consistent policy on individual articles for episodes of a tv show, because WP:TVSHOW says that generally nationally broadcasted tv shows are relevant, and finally because there are significant sources cited in the article and undiscovered on the internet, the article should not be deleted. --Ben Knapp (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Ben Knapp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A search of "How I Met Your Mother site:ign.com" shows "How I Met Your Mother: "The Fortress" Review", "How I Met Your Mother: "Bad Crazy" Review", and "How I Met Your Mother: "Weekend at Barneys" Review". This site hires writers to write reviews for these episodes and for IGN.com's own (company) profit.  These references do not lend notability to this article.Curb Chain (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point seems illogical to me. Judging by the official wikipedia guidelines, not arbitrary ones, the IGN source qualifies as a notable source.  It is written by a 3rd party, it is a secondary source, and it is certainly reliable.  Just because IGN writes about other HIMYM episodes and tv shows and pays its writers, this does not somehow discredit the source.  If HIMYM episodes were not popular than IGN would not write about it.  --Ben Knapp (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Ben Knapp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't see any notability. IGN has reviews for almost every show on TV, even for Grey's Anatomy and Chuck episodes which were redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely you are just giving your personal opinion (and I happen to agree the episode probably doesn't warrant a separate article). However, within policy, guidelines and precedent there seems to be no right or wrong – individuals may simply give their considered views and we see what consensus emerges in this case. On the general point, newspaper journalists are paid salaries to write articles ultimately for the newspaper owners' profit. Such sources can certainly establish notability. Thincat (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to How I Met Your Mother (season 7). Individual episodes can of course have their own articles when they have won notable awards or been written about and analysed extensively (ie: most Simpsons episodes), but this just looks to be a garden variety episode.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect. One can find reviews for just about every episode of a show like this. Reviews like this are not enough to show notability. To be notable, the episode ought to be significant in some way that others are not. Since there's nothing that makes this special, it ought to be redirected, and we should do the same to other episodes like this that aren't special. Ducknish (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close. After an AFD two weeks ago, a DRV last week, and another round of AFD without any significant support for straight-out deletion, it ought to be clear that this is just a routine editorial decision. Shut this timewasting clutter down. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus is showing that the episode to be redirected. Is there something I'm not reading?Curb Chain (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * keep I agree. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not WP:JUSTAVOTECurb Chain (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The statements in the article's Critical response section sufficiently prove notability, although the key assertion that the episode is "the show's second most watched episode to date" needs to be sourced (and the specific date given). -   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 03:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Keep !votes are unconvincing. It lacks the indepth coverage from third-party sources that WP:N stresses a topic must have for its own article. Should be redirected to the article about the season (rather than outright deletion) as a possible search term Till  10:53, 28 March 2013 (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.