Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 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 keep. &mdash;Xyrael / 13:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 episode)
4400 has an individual article for each episode. The articles each contain a single quote from the episode, and a brief summary. The articles contain nothing else but an episode summary.

At worst, the articles are just repeating the 2-line summary from List_of_The_4400_episodes (for example, The Home Front (The 4400 episode). All articles for season 3 are like this). At best, the articles contain a scene-by-scene synopsis (which is something that's supposed to be avoided).

They contain nothing about the episode's relevance in the ongoing story arc, nothing about how the episode was received, its impact on popular culture, or any other commentery or real world context. All the broadcasting information can be added to the table at List_of_The_4400_episodes. The summaries there can be expanded a little, or an article could be created for individual seasons when there's actually something to say about them.

We certainly don't need an individual article for each episode if the article is just summarizing what's happening (and there's really nothing else to say about them). Centralized discussion/Television episodes does say to create episode articles "Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes..." which really isn't the case here.

The rest of 4400's episode articles:


 * Pilot (The 4400 episode)
 * Becoming (The 4400 episode)
 * Trial By Fire (The 4400 episode)
 * White Light (The 4400 episode)
 * Wake Up Call (The 4400 episode)
 * Voices Carry (The 4400 episode)


 * Weight Of The World (The 4400 episode)
 * Suffer The Children (The 4400 episode)
 * As Fate Would Have It (The 4400 episode)
 * Life Interrupted (The 4400 episode)
 * Carrier (The 4400 episode)


 * Rebirth (The 4400 episode)
 * Hidden (The 4400 episode)
 * Lockdown (The 4400 episode)
 * The Fifth Page (The 4400 episode)
 * Mommy's Bosses (The 4400 episode)

And the season 3 episodes (these are the ones which just say what is already on List of The 4400 episodes


 * The New World (The 4400 episode)
 * Being Tom Baldwin (The 4400 episode)
 * Gone (The 4400 episodes)
 * Graduation Day (The 4400 episode)
 * The Home Front (The 4400 episode)
 * Blink (The 4400 episode)


 * The Ballad of Kevin and Tess (The 4400 episode)
 * Fifty-Fifty (The 4400 episode)
 * Terrible Swift Sword (The 4400 episode)
 * The Gospel According to Collier (The 4400 episode)
 * The Starzl Mutation (The 4400 episode)

--`/aksha 07:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Appropriate quote - "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." - From WP:NOT --`/aksha 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Be bold and merge—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with the list of 4400 episodes.--MonkBirdDuke 08:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all - All have good quality content worked on by the 4400 project, not all are out of stub status either, but lack of content is not justifcation for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 08:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep too many to merge, each is worth its own article. --Alex (Talk) 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because they all are serious violations of WP:NOT, namely Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 7. These article sare nothing more than plot summaries, and thus should be deleted. Make an article per season, and only majke an article for a separate episode when that episode has enough outside references and discussion from reliable, verifiable sources.IF you can't teel anything but who acted, what happened, when was it shown, and what ratings did it get, then don't make an article for it. Fram 10:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all and expand all. They could be useful. S  e rgeantBolt (t,c) 10:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepEach will be added to as time goes on and each will have enough information to warrant its own article. --Mjrmtg 10:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you give an indication for the kind of info and source you would use for any of them (well, perhaps not the pilot, that one should be easier, but some episode in the middle of the series)? If that info is not available yet, then the article shouldn't exist yet. So, anyone has any indepth articles fom a reliable source about any (let alone each) episode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 11:08, October 23, 2006
 * Uncomplete != criteria for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unverifiable = criterium for deletion. WP:NOT = criterium for deletion. When you remove the plot summary, there is nothing left. IF no one can give me even an indication of what sources can be used to add some kind of external, verifiable information about a specific episode, then this means that there is nothing to fill an article with at the moment. Stating that "each will have enough information" as a reason to keep it is baseless crystal ballism, similar to "my band will one day be famous". Not one of the keep voters have given reasons within the policies as to why the articles as they stand should be kept, and not one has given a shred of evidence that they can be remade according to Wikipedia policy. While "uncomplete" is of course not a reason for deletion, it still is a huge non sequitur from my comment. Please indicate how and where you'll find more out-of-universe info for these articles per WP:V and WP:NOT, instead of just stating that they have "good quality content" (which ones?). Fram 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, without going back and watching the episode and tracking down additional verifiable information, I have little doubt that it could have a references to other stories section and a trivia section, similar to several of the Doctor Who episodes (e.g., The Girl in the Fireplace). For example -- and I'm making this up, but bear with me -- "This episode marks the first appearance of a 4400 outside of NTAC's direct supervision," or "The pain Lily suffers on her eldest daughter's doorstep foreshadows the attack on her daughter in As Fate Would Have It" or "This is the first episode in which Mickey Mouse appears in the opening credits."
 * WP:NOT, which you've quoted yourself, states, "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." I concur.  The solution, however, is not to delete the skeleton onto which this analysis and detail will hang, but rather to flesh out the skeleton and give it life.
 * As for WP:V, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Could you clarify? Travisl 01:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What I mean with WP:V is the examples you give (and I know you made them up, but you'll get the idea): "The pain Lily suffers on her eldest daughter's doorstep foreshadows the attack on her daughter in As Fate Would Have It": is that an idea you have, fans have on a forum, or is it an idea, an interpretation given in some reliable source (a newspaper, a documentary, ...) as defined in WP:V? I fear that most of this kind of info would come from not-reliable sources (not meaning that it wouldn't be true!), and thus should not be included in Wikipedia. In the end, if all you have is such info, then you don't have an article, and it should be deleted until such scholarly info is available. Since it seems that not much of such info is available, the best idea seems to me to get an article per season, and delete the individual articles. Fram 05:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is verifiable in an episode is an interesting subject. As a normal viewer, I am aware of various things the director can do to advance the plot non-verbally.  They'll linger on someones eyes, while they have an angry look, to show that person's displeasure over something that was just said, for instance.  I think a case could be made that these things are obvious to a normal viewer and therefore verifiable by watching the episode.  I can also hear objections to a "normal viewer's" existence. - Peregrinefisher 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that is original research (WP:OR. Even if "everybody knows" something, if it isn't written down (or said out loud) in a reliable source (as defined in WP:V, so no primary source), then it isn't acceptable. Again, it is not about truth, but about verifiability. Now, a plot summary is verifiable (look at listings in TV magazines and so on), but an article which is only or even mainly a plot summary is not acceptable either, per WP:NOT. So in the end, it doesn't matter how many people have an opinion about an episode, or even if they all agree: if no "scholarly studies" (reviews in reliable, reputable magazines, books about the series from an outside perspective, ...) exist, then no article following Wikipedia policies is possible, and they should be deleted (I have no problem with an article about a whole season as a compromise: I don't dispute that the series exists, has been shown in many countries, and has gotten a lot of viewers and so on). Fram 08:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that in an article about a TV episode, the actual episode itself is considered to be a primary source. --`/aksha 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep for the most part, but merge the especially bad ones to the list. I just wish people would write about episodes of shows I've actually heard of. — CharlotteWebb 11:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - perhaps following the example of other television series entries with episodic listings, and having a single page for each season's worth of episodes. --Mhking 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all into List of The 4400 episodes per point 7 of WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Extraordinary Machine 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * comment it's not so much a lack of content, but a lack of potential content. None of the articles demonstrate any evidence of there being anything more to say than episode summaries. Is there any point keeping tons of articles just because some day they may be expanded. I mean, what's next? 300 individual articles with summaries of a few paragraphs long for each Law and Order episode? Or god knows how many articles for each pokemon episode that's ever aired? --`/aksha 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all: There are wayyyyy to many articles and each of them are wayyyy too long to be merged in any purposeful manner. Separate articles make sense here. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't recall ever seeing WP:TOO HARD as a justification for leaving bad articles in the encyclopedia. Consequentially 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's something called "common sense." -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But there is WP:SIZE, which, admittedly, is merely advisory, but it's good advice. Travisl 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all and expand all, per SergeantBolt. Also note that Centralized discussion/Television episodes states, "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)."   Shannernanner   16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. I agree with `/aksha on this one -- this isn't about a lack of content as the article stands now. Instead, we're asserting that the odds of these episodes generating significant outside discussion on themes, motifs, etc. are slim at best. Consequentially 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per MonkBirdDuke.--Isotope23 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Yaksha. GassyGuy 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * O.o merge as per me? I nominated them for deletion. Although it does look like things are leaning towards merge. --`/aksha</b> 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above Bwithh 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all: Several television series have pages for every episode. If an episode is incomplete, it can be expanded.  Adding episode related information to the the main page will certainly push it over any reasonable size. (And Yaksha, here's the List of Pokémon episodes you were fearing.) Travisl 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The notion of having 500+ articles like this is quite frankly terrifying =P. --<b style="color:#330066">`/aksha</b> 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the main article is too long, trim it. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, per SergeantBolt. -- PKtm 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above. The mere existence of other TV-show episodes says nothing about these -- even whether those others ought not to be nominated themselves -- so a moot argument. Two lines per episode in an episode list (separate or in the main article) is sufficient. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not saying it's 100% impossible that those can turn into decent articles. But just that...given there is currently nothing to say about them except summary, why should we bother to keep the articles around for the off-chance that they may be expanded in the future? I mean...wikipedia has information about tons of TV (including cartoon/anime) series. Does that mean if someone went out and created articles like this for each and every episode of each of the more popular TV/cartoon/anime shows, we would keep them all? That'd be thousands of articles, many would never be expanded. I mean, i understand this "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)", but the same page also states to create articles for each season (or other logical division) when there's enough independently verifiable information and THEN create articles for each episode "independently verifiable information included about individual episodes". In this case, i'm doubtful there's even enough independently verifiable information for season articles (lenght isn't a concern. Seasons in 4400 are only 13 episodes long, or 6 in the case of season 1), so why give individual episode articles a chance? --<b style="color:#330066">`/aksha</b> 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Some of the pages are only a few months old. They seem to be growing quickly.  The standard progression is from 1) a list, to 2) a list linked to a season page, to 3) a list linked to individual episodes.  We may have jumped the gun on the last stage, but it was probably coming soon anyways. - Peregrinefisher 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all&mdash;I'd never even heard of this show before, but I see no reason why its episodes shouldn't have their own articles. That's standard practice, and for good reason. Everyking 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These aren't articles. They're plot summaries. If there were more encyclopaedic content out there to be used, I would agree completely that these should be kept and expanded. But there isn't. It makes much more sense to merge them, then break them off iff scholarly material becomes available. GassyGuy 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all and expand. per above. Room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You would expect that at least one of all the people saying this, would at least try to give one example for one episode, just to show that it is indeed possible and not just wishful thinking... Fram 11:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought this was some kind of vote - when we vote for people in political offices we don't give reasons why we voted that way ;) --Mjrmtg 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

- I was just kidding - geesh - everyone takes things so seriously on Wikipedia --Mjrmtg 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, AfD is a discussion by arguments intended to reach a consensus, not a vote. See Articles for Deletion, section "How to...", which says (first line): "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." That is why I ask people voting keep to show us some evidence that their arguments are based on something more than wishful thinking. If you can't convince other people that there are for the moment (not in the future) ways to make the articles good enough (with regards to the Wikipedia policies) by providing good sources, then a thousand people can say keep and it still will be worth nothing. When there is discussion if the sources given are good enough, then you can have a no consensus (defaulting to a keep of the article in reality): when there are no arguments for keeping (only "votes" with unsubstantiated claims), then the article should be deleted. Fram 11:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pilot at tv.com has a number of things that could be added to Pilot (The 4400 episode). Atlas II missiles are no longer used by the military, and the episode misuses latitude and longitude, for example. - Peregrinefisher 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, this part of TV.com is a wiki as well (notice the "edit" buttons, so I don't know if it counts as a reliable source. Furthermore, there is a lot of discussion if trivia sections are what we want/need at Wikipedia as well (they are one reason to refuse a FA status). But at least it is a source with info, so thank you! Fram 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [ign.com] has a review of the pilot. That might be an acceptable thing to talk about.  I know you can't cite tv.com because it's a wiki, but one could watch the show as a primary source and do some research on Atlas II missiles and if it all works out, credibly add that info to the page. - Peregrinefisher 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Having only seen the first 6 episodes, I'm not really interested in looking at each and every one as I don't want to spoil myself. To use "New and Improved" as an example, that's a perfectly legitimate stubbish article to start out, and this show doesn't suffer from a lack of being written about it, either.  If I, personally, could expand them, I would.  I'm sure others can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete. Episodes are not encyclopedic. This goes beyond our scope as an encyclopedia. --Improv 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all and expand all. Definitely room for expansion.  Funkadillo 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge All: If the single article grows too large and shows that has enough content to justify separate articles, then the separate articles could be recreated.  --Jabrwocky7 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge for reasons listed above. Xdenizen 02:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Ryūlóng M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 05:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all: I'm Worried about a Slippery slope what are we going to do next delete all the Simpsons episodes???, Well no of coarse not, because they are developed, unless you look into thier episode histories before they were.(from 2002 looks rather cruft at that point). I would hate to see wikipedia be nothing but a clone of the Encyclopædia Britannica. ▪◦▪  =Sirex    98=  10:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it's a valid point. But i'm also very worried about the same Slippery slope in the other direction. As in what we would do when people start making articles for each individual episode of all the TV series that we have on Wikipedia; resulting in tons of stub articles for each TV episode. We'll have to drawn some kind of a line somewhere. --<b style="color:#330066">`/aksha</b> 12:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would that be a bad thing? We have a decent general working consensus when it comes to albums from artists - all musicians get albums, but the songs only get them in certain circumstances.  If a TV show got all the episodes, but certain aspects of the episodes don't get broken out except in specific circumstances (think Saturday Night Live and "Lazy Sunday" as an example of an aspect of an episode), that would be entirely worthwhile. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information. To quote "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." The problem with these articles is that they often end up being merely episode summaries and nothing more. Once there's enough to say about a TV series beyond the main article, we expand into smaller articles, including articles about plot and seasons. That should come before expanding into individual episodes. There's no point having articles for individual episodes if all they're going to do is repeat a two-line summary from the main episode-list article. If a dedicated fan wished to expand the articles about that TV series, they can start with decent season articles, then expand into episode articles when season articles get too big. Albums are different, because you can't sensibly group them into larger articles. I suppose something like "all albums by X" is sort of possibly, but doesn't seem to work. Where as "season X" instead of many "episode X" articles seems to work fine. --<b style="color:#330066">`/aksha</b> 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) All 5082 episodes of Neighbours their own article? The horror! Let's add all 6409 episodes of Coronation Street, all 5000 or so episodes of Newsnight (before someone accuses me of focusing on soaps), and so on... Artists make one album a year (on average), not 26 or 200. Every album by a major artist gets tons of professional reviews: I don't think many episodes of Neighbours have gotten even one professional review or analysis. The Simpsons, to come back to the argument, are one of the most discussed long running TV series ever, and even so, the article referenced (the very first long episode) is after three and a half years still pretty bad (though a lot better than the 4400 episodes we are discussing here). When there is really enough independent, out-of-universe, verifiable material to write articles about any episode, please do so: until then, why bother? Those articles are only describing what you see when you watch such an episode, and aren't giving any insight, and more importantly aren't acting like a tertiary source reproducing and condensing the comments of secondary sources, which is what all Wikipedia articles should do. I don't see a reason why TV episodes would have different rules than all other articles on Wikipedia which are defined by policies. Fram 12:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * i should add, i remember seeing on a policy page before (forgot which one) that said the purpose of summaries on articles isn't to replace the real thing. As in it's not supposed to serve people who can't/won't watch the episodes in real. --<b style="color:#330066">`/aksha</b> 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To repeat my previous post: because they don't have any contents per Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOT: they don't sem to violate WP:NPOV, but you have to follow all policies, not just one of them...). I repeat once more: Wikipedia is a tertiary source; not a secondary source. If there are no secondary sources (according to WP:V) with material deemed acceptable (per WP:NOT), then those articles have no place here. So why are you defending them anyway? Fram 13:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they can follow those policies with a little love and tenderness. I'd rather see them improved than deleted, and it's something I'm currently not able to do, but would be glad to when it is possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles are a skeleton, there suppsoed to be built up, we are only a few suers at present, a skelton gets added to until its up to a good standard, you dont delete an article because its not "finished" <font face="Tahoma">thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be deleted because they are not "fnished" (or even because they aren't really started), but because they can't be "finished" at the moment due to a lack of sources, despite the apparently unfounded belief to the contrary of those wanting to keep. Looking through the 129 distinct Google hits for "The New and Improved Carl Morrissey", I see not one source which is giving anything beyond either a plot summary, amateur reviews, or cast info (IMDb type). No profesional reviews, analysis, ... Of course, even for recent things, not everything can be found via Google, but it is the task of those wanting to keep an article to provide sources and to show that the articles can indeed be written according to Wikipedia policies. Fram 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And we're telling you that they can. They're stubs.  They gotta start somewhere, and they meet the basic standards as is and can continue to when expanded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Jeff, do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Because without evidence all it is is your personal hope/opinion. Fram cites evidence to show that the articles do not and currently CAN NOT meet various criteria, your counter-argument rests on the fact that future third-party resources will become available (i.e. "someone will write a review someday"). This is pure and simple crystal balling and doesn't strengthen your position. Zunaid (T•C) Please rate me at Editor Review! 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any readily available to present that can be Googled, sure. The problem is twofold - one, as a sci-fi show, it's certainly covered in sci-fi magazines, which can be useful to epxand these if the right editors come along.  Secondly, they don't violate WP:V now or do they have to violate WP:V later.  My position doesn't really need to be strengthened on that regard, because the article is generally okay as currently stated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm hearing people say that good info doesn't exist for this show. I got 613,000 hits for "the 4400" review on google. A link on the first page led to this quote "With well over 7 million viewers on tap, the pilot episode of USA Network’s sci-fi/drama series, “The 4400”, was the highest rated and most-watched new series premiere on basic cable. By the time the last episode aired, the series has notched an average of almost 6 million viewers throughout its entire 6-hour run, making “The 4400” the top-rated original series in basic cable’s history." This is a very notable show that should be written about in detail. - Peregrinefisher 18:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all (preferably) or else Semi-merge and redirect all to an appropriate list/summary article. User:Fram gives excellent deletion rationale in all of his/her arguments above (backed up by equally well-reasoned arguments by User:Yaksha), and I have not seen a decent counter-argument refuting their points from any of the "keepers". This is how consensus (as opposed to vote counting) on Wikipedia is supposed to work. Fram and Yaksha make the best case of anyone here. Zunaid (T•C) please rate me! 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply: I don't know where you have heard that "good info doesn't exist for this show", I certainly haven't read that in this AfD. What I (and others) say is that for many individual episodes (e.g. "The New and Improved Carl Morrissey", the one which started all this), there is for the moment not a shred of evidence that there is enough reliable, non-trivial coverage (i.e. reviews, analysis, ...) to write individual articles. I have also explicitly stated that I assumed that an exception could be made for the pilot, as those often do get more attention (although the link you give is not an acceptable one, as this is just a kind of Wiki, the opinion of some reviewer, not a peice written by any journalistic standards or published by a reliable publisher). No one is arguing that we shouldn't write about the show, in fact I think everyone here agreed that an article per season was quite acceptable. You are just using a strawman. Fram 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - I'm not saying that's a good source. I'm just saying that a show with this many viewers can support individual pages. - Peregrinefisher 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't have a problem with individual episode articles, provided the information is verifiable. They can be useful.  On a related note, though, in examining this I did put Category:The 4400 up for cfd, since the unique parent category for the show doesn't appear to be necessary, and generally it's a bad idea to have a seperate unique category for individual shows and films. Since this discussion is related, I'd recommend taking a look at the cfd for that category and giving input, one way or another. Dugwiki 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all These episodes will most likely never contain enough real-life information to ever be considered more than a summary. The impact of the individual episodes is very insignificant, which is not always the case for other articles, like Trapped in the Closet (South Park). -- Ned Scott 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all : None of these episodes will ever be notable enough to maintain their own articles, and as Ned Scott above me says, none are likely to create any kind of media controversy like South Park or the Simpsons has numerous times in the past. --90.192.92.91 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasonable amount of room for expansion IMO. Tubechallenger 07:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Plot summaries alone is not acceptable expansion. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Expansion" - I think that obviously means imo that he thinks it needs more outside the brief synopsis. <font face="Tahoma">thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ~ why? there good articles that will likely get better given time. --Mattythewhite 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no reason to delete these articles. It is common practice to create articles for episodes of television shows.  All these articles have at least an info box and some additional information.  They should be expanded, but deletion is not the answer.  --musicpvm 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep good content, could use some work tho user:wossi
 * Keep all. Though I agree that we shouldn't have individual episode articles on every television program out there, Wikipedia should follow the lead of how outside sources are handling it.  In the case of shows such as Star Trek and The Simpsons and Lost (TV series), there are definitely individual discussions going on about different episodes, and fans routinely refer to the episodes individually, rather than as a grouped set (such as with a soap opera like General Hospital).  In the case of 4400, the show has millions of viewers, and is clearly notable.  It has garnered multiple Emmy nominations, survived multiple seasons, and has a substantial fanbase.  Further, it appears that the fans discuss not just the show as a gestalt, but individual episodes by name.  As such, it makes sense to have a separate article on each episode. However, I will add a caveat, that I do see a difference between current notability, and longterm notability.  4400 is definitely popular and notable now, but 20 years from now, it may be little more than a footnote.  As such, it would make sense to me that Wikipedia learn to adapt to these changing levels of fame, such that a show which does deserve dozens or hundreds of articles today, might in the future (a generation from now?) be better served by merging these articles into a more concise general summary of the entire arc of the show.  But for now, while interest is high, I say keep the articles separate and let the information flow. --Elonka 21:44, 26 October 2006(UTC)
 * Keep all. We can have individual episodes for other TV shows like Babylon 5, Doctor Who, and all five live-action Star Trek series. Yet we can't have them for The 4400? Why, because they're incomplete? Nah, that doesn't sound right. --From Andoria with Love 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a weak argument. As others have mentioned above, some articles only exist because they haven't been nominated for deletion. Per [WP:NOT], Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for inormation, and that includes plot summaries that do not reference the episode in the context of the real world. That is, unless these individual episodes have garnered the attenetion of significant third-party sources -- forums and fan bases do not qualify as such -- there's nothing worth writing about. We can't have the articles on 4400 Episodes because they're only plot summaries, and offer no [WP:V|verifiable] discussion on their motifs, symbolism, themes, technical achievments, controversies and so on. The burden to prove their verifiable notability and connection to outside discourse lies on the "keep" voters. That the show is popular and generates major amounts of notable discussion is a good reason to keep the main article. But the same level of interest must be discovered for an individual episode if we are to allowe them to propegate. Consequentially 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep All If one television show deserves to have individual pages for all episodes, then every show has that right. Unless we're going to delete every episode page ever created on Wikipedia, we can't delete 4400 episode articles. Plus people need to help improve these articles, not just delete them because they're not to your particular quality standards. It takes TIME and EFFORT to improve articles. --The Radio Star 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this is an extremely flawed logic that has become a huge problem on Wikipedia. When, via Centralized discussion/Television episodes, it was decided that it was okay to include episode articles, the rational was not for all TV shows. The idea that any TV show can get episode articles if someone is willing to write a huge summary on the episode is a major misconception and violates policy and guidelines. The fact that this is a big problem and that lots of other articles do this too does not make this okay. Some, not all, episodes should get articles. That even means that not all episodes of the same show should get articles even if one does. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all per previous merge arguments. Dr Who/B5 are poor comparisons: Amazon will sell you episode/(dis)continuity guides and the like, so you don't need to rely on taking notes, you can use secondary sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I imagine these growing into healthy quality articles --PrincessCaitlai 22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above - Also, this would set a precedent for episode pages, and a single episode can be a quite substantial article. <b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b><sub style="color:black;">(2¢)  01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * can being the keyword. When there's no evidence of people attempting (or being able) to even make some "substatial articles" for entire seasons, why should we keep a whole bunch of episode articles around to strew? If someone's serious about writing dozens of decent episode articles that are more than just summaries, then they should have no problems putting together some season articles first to show there's more to say than only summaries. Once again, i use the "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic" quote. --<b style="color:#330066">`/aksha</b> 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The 4400 pages seem to be pretty active. Pulling the plug on pages that are 2 months old doesnt' seem like giving them much of a chance. - Peregrinefisher 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, two months seems like it would be plenty of time to find an article -- any article, even -- that offers the kind of information that we're asking for. With the show's popularity, finding an issue of Entertainment Weekly or a similar publication that brings significant information to light shouldn't be an issue. The problem that's popping up here is that such information doesn't exist. People seem to think that we write an aritcle and slap what we "know" into the pages, and then come back to source it later when we find something that backs up the claim. That's completely wrong. If you can't source it per WP:V, then it shouldn't be in the article. And if not being able to source it doesn't leave you with much of an article, well, you've got to roll with that. Consequentially 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The writer, date, etc. all have a reliable source. The episode itself is a primary source.  If you think its written in too much of an in-universe style, thats something to fix, not delete.  How to do it is explained here. - Peregrinefisher 04:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not supposed to use primary sources, and the rest of the info (writer, date) can easily go into an article about a season, with a table of episodes. See e.g. Carnivàle, where all the info is still in the main article, for an example of such tables, and the decent amount of info one can put into those. Apart from that, you still don't have any WP:V sources to get more info from, so either delete these or merge them. Fram 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the only information fit to include is the writer, date, and plot summary, then the episode doesn't need its own article. The four-sentence blips can fit into a list, by season if that's the better option, and be expanded into their own articles when there are appropriate sources for more substantive additions. I don't mind the "in-universe" problems as much as I do the unnecessary branching of a topic that has generated minimal third-party discussion. Consequentially 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Googling "the 4400" returns millions of hits, so someone is talking about it. - Peregrinefisher 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This, my friend, is a straw man. You're misrepresenting my argument. A Google search for "The 4400" does in fact return a few million hits, but a Google search for this episode generates only 414, with the first five being IMDb, Amazon.com, Wikipedia, TV.com, and a fan-run 4400 site. This only supports my original statement: the series is noteable and deserves its own article, this individual episode does not. Consequentially 05:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's the second time you used the same straw man in this AfD, Peregrinefisher. Please don't. 05:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, just the Carl Morrissey episode. A quick google search brings up things like where parts are filmed, what songs are featured and geographic errors, on the first page.  Now I'm not saying use these as sources, but this is stuff you can easily come up with by viewing the episode and doing a little research. - Peregrinefisher 05:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The first link is to a blog with a non-notable author. The second link is to a wiki-style fan site, with no references of its own. The third link provides one piece of trivia, which, while interesting, is by no means encyclopedic. I pointed that out in my last response to you -- the one that used this same search. Fan-run sites and the TV.com wiki do not count as reliable sources, and IMDb should be used on a case-by-case basis. Are suggesting that each episode is notable because it has a piece of trivia attatched, or that its covered by a 4400-specific fan ring with no journalistic credentials?Consequentially 06:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I said "I'm not saying use these as sources." I'm just saying that there's enough info that it is best formatted in single pages. - Peregrinefisher 06:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But there isn't. Each season of The 4400 has thirteen episodes. If we assume the kind of content you're suggesting, that gives us roughly five sentences per episode. Multiply that by the season, and you get a list that is somewhere in the neighborhood of sixty-five sentences long. Nothing unruly or horrible about that, and again, that's if we assume that trivial content is worthy of inclusion. I already disagree with you there, as does WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT, and WP:FICTION. One list is better than thirteen stubs that, due to a limited amount of acceptable reference material, will never be expanded. Consequentially 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well said. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A reasonable plot summary (like these pages have) is longer than what you're talking about. - Peregrinefisher 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If we don't have real-world info to put the the plot summary in context then it won't matter how reasonable or well written that summary is. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The real world context is it's a tv show episode, X people were involved in making it, X songs were featured, it was filmed in X and the significant features of the plot were X. - Peregrinefisher 07:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The first two points can much better be included in a season article / episode list (since the TV show info stays the same, and most of the people involved don't change between episodes): featured songs seems to be a very minor point (and the theme songs are usually the same for every episode anyway), location usually as well (and will often be the same across most episodes anyawy, so again better suited for a list), so the main discussion is the length of the plot, which seems in the current articles way too long for the amount of other info available, the WP:V attention these episodes have received, and per WP:NOT. The plot summaries as they stand now are hardly comprehensible for someone not familiar with the series, so should either be way longer (which is totally unacceptable per WP:NOT), or way shorter (not focusing on particular details, but giving a very general story line). So I don't see why your previous post can be adressed by a season article? Fram 09:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a large part of our disagreement centers on formatting. Our goal is to answer a users questions, and I think we should make them do the least amount of scrolling and clicking as possible.  An infobox with complete cast and crew info just won't fit nicely on a season page, and that's verifiable info that we can all agree is important, and it changes episode to episode.  You could make it 1 click away, but why not 0 clicks away?  As far as the level of plot detail, the best way I've seen to do that is in the Buffy pages, for example Nightmares (Buffy episode).  A shorter summary answers very general questions, and a longer one explains the context.  Another thing that doesn't go well with season pages are external links.  Imdb and tv.com have individual pages that should be linked to.  You could link to their lists, but then you've added maybe two clicks and some scrolling/reading. - Peregrinefisher 16:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, conversely, if a user is trying to learn more about the series and wants to see what information we have on individual episodes, they'll have to make at least 27 clicks to read the same sixty-five sentences per season. Many of those sentences will be duplicate information, as per Fram's comment above. Less scrolling, more clicking. And that's if we grant that navigational concerns are grounds for keeping an article from being merged. There is no Wikipedia policy to support that belief, especially when it conflicts with other needs. Consequentially 19:31, 27 October 2006 (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.