Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sandkings

It's not encyclopedic. It's belongs on a fan web site rather than an encyclopedia. And it's only just 1 episode from a low notable tv series. And it seems that the series already ended, which means this is sneaky advertising of a product so other networks would syndicate the series. Gavin M 06:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but wikify. Haven't you ever seen The Outer Limits?  :)  -- Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  06:33, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Outer Limits was not a "low notable tv series" -- it often featured well-known science fiction stories, written by many famous authors. Outer Limits was often the first time these stories first saw dramatization.  As for individual episodes from the series,  if someone wants to take the time to produce encyclopedic articles on individual episodes, I say more power to them. - Kevyn 07:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Great article, good topic, a little obscure maybe but quite encyclopedic. Look forward to seeing more of these. Andrewa 10:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, keep. If this goes, so too go all the Babylon 5 episodes. As do all the minor characters from the Harry Potter series, minor characters, places, and occurrences from Tolkien, and probably thousands more pages. Not that I don't think they should all go, mind you, just that I think it would be politically impossible to get a consensus on the issue. - Kenwarren 13:53, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a problem myself, but I suspect I'm in the minority. One comment - this is the first episode of the 90's revival of the series (IMDB says this lasted 1995-2002), rather than the original classic series, and so is not as notable. Or good. I'm no sci-fi buff, though, so no vote. Average Earthman 14:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Episode synopses are well-established as acceptable deep within the Wikipedia structure, and this is a good one to boot. Jgm 19:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - as notable as episodes of any other television series. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, precedent is that episodes of TV shows are eligible for articles, and while I personally think this article in no way enriches the Wikipedia, I won't vote for its deletion when there are so many other episode articles out there (some damn good ones, too). &mdash;Stormie 06:09, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm puzzled by your reasoning. How about if we keep the notable TV shows (I guess there are some) and toss out the nonnotable ones -- isn't that a workable rule? I completely don't understand the implication that if we let in one TV show, we have to open the gates to all of them. I'll bet WP has some articles about former high school teachers, but... you see where I'm going with this. With all due respect, Wile E. Heresiarch 06:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wile E., I don't really watch TV, so I don't know what's notable and what's not. Hence I'm not going to vote for the deletion of some but not others, but rather to keep 'em, if someone's made the effort to write 'em. &mdash;Stormie 00:40, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless fancruft. It's not too late to start clearing away that crap. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep The Outer Limits is one of those shows where an article for each episode works far better than a single page on the show itself.  The cast and story were usually completely different between episodes.  Many episodes cast notable actors who only appeared in one show. The Steve 08:16, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even the second run is a fairly well-known TV show, notable enough for inclusion of episode descriptions, not to mention it's a pretty good article. Everyking 11:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arevich 13:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) People are clearly interested in learning about The Sandkings. Arevich 13:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Postdlf 15:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and keep original name. - SimonP 06:09, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my previous comments and vote have fallen below the sockpuppet line. At this point, I'm willing to change my vote to keep, previous name.  I'm still not entirely convinced by Do not use subpages, and its links, but it will take me a while to develop a coherent argument and write a proposal.  I still think some sort of subpaging would be useful for fictional universes.  I understand that I have to deal with the body of previous debate, and why current methods are lacking; I might change my mind in the process.  Two questions:
 * 1) Are these debates archived forever, or will I need to make a personal copy?
 * 2) If I do develop a policy proposal I'd like to encourage discussion on, what should I do with it? Someone suggested Rating systems as a model; is it all right to create proposals in the Wikipedia: namespace, or would it be better on my talk page?        -- Creidieki 07:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter tripe Williamb 07:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the TV episode. But the sockpuppet farce has me enraged. This vote has been corrupted. I'd rather keep a silly page than reward this kind of behaviour on wikipedia. --Woggly 07:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would probably have voted to keep anyway, but the use of sockpuppetry to vote for the deletion of this article has really convinced me. Elf-friend 17:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The individual who put this up for deletion in the first place is almost certainly responsible for the sockpuppets.  All of his edits are on this page.  Agree with Woggly...I'm pissed too. - Lucky 6.9 00:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a general rule I don't support individual episode articles, but this is an exception.  Not only is it the first episode in the second run, but the novelette it's based on won both a Hugo Award and a Nebula Award. Isomorphic 03:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'''All further votes on this topic were made by sockpuppets. There are a few comments below made by real users, but it is mostly paragraphs of sockpuppetry. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)'''


 * Delete. I believe the term is pseudoinformation.  Rothko 05:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you loaded an Encarta or Britannica CD you wouldn't see television episode descriptions.  Goncharova 05:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reviving old series are always unsuccessful.  Look at the Twilight Zone revival.  It only lasted 1 season before it got cancelled in comparison to the classic Twilight Zone, which lasted much longer. Matisse 05:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a blatant vanity page. Jasper J 05:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep. Leger 05:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, I think that's the first time I've seen an army of sockpuppets pop up to vote to delete an article, rather than to keep it! &mdash;Stormie 06:09, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep, but implement a Naming Convention policy on names of episodes from TV shows, and other subdivisions of literary works. I posted some comments about this on Votes_for_deletion/The_Cast_Away_Cat_Princess_Prelude.  There's no reason not to have episode summaries and character descriptions, particularly for (historically/socially) important TV episodes, comic books, etc.  But we can't clutter the namespace with the title of every anime episode every created.  I'd suggest moving this to The Outer Limits, Season 1, Episode 1.  I'd be happy to draft a policy about that sort of things to open discussion, but I'm still pretty new and I'm not sure where the right place to post it would be. Creidieki 06:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. The original Outer Limits series only lasted for about 2 years and is common knowledge among sci fi buffs.  However according to experts, the revived Outer Limits lasted for 7 years and most sci fi buffs don't even know the series was revived.  I think that speaks volumes on how notable the revived series is and how notable 1 episode from that series is. I say DELETE with pleasure.  Magritte 07:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another sockpuppet. They never learn. Andrewa 10:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Moved page to The Outer Limits (1995) episode: The Sandkings to reduce namespace clutter. Creidieki 22:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Was this new namespace authorized by consensus? I remember there are several instances where people proposed creating new namespaces, but always the general consensus is not to create them.  For example, the idea for a 'List' namespace .  From what I've usually seen, TV episodes are usually created with the title and the name of the series in parentheses. Here are some examples: Soul Hunter (Babylon 5), Teacher's Pet (Buffy episode), The Chaser (The Twilight Zone). 128.125.30.47 23:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with the anonymous commenter above&mdash;the titles of the episodes themselves should come first in the article title. The page should be moved back.  Postdlf 23:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * All right. I couldn't find any policies about naming subthingies of artistic works (characters, episodes, etc.), so I was basically trying to find a reasonable solution.  If there's a standard way, I certainly wouldn't object to it being moved back.  I'll take a look at the Naming Conventions page.  I'm a little uncertain on where to move this episode, though, because of the way the series was recontinued.  Would The Sandkings (Outer Limits) be all right, or would we want something like The Sandkings (Outer Limits (1995)), or The Sandkings (Outer Limits (Revival))?  There's at least one episode title ("Nightmare") that appears in both the 1960 series and the 1995 series.   Creidieki 01:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find a standard for this type of situation. However, I was able to find an example of it.  It's in this page List of The Twilight Zone episodes, the episode "The After Hours" appears in the classic series and first revival.  Sorry, but that was the best that I could do to help the situation. Korcas 02:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Since it looks like this article is going to be kept, I'd go for the new namespace idea. There is no set standard on how episodes are suppose to be named and the namespace idea is a great way to get these crap articles out of the way.  This would definitely give more professionalism to Wikipedia.  Gavin M 04:02, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I'd keep the article named as The Outer Limits (1995) episode: The Sandkings. And how dare you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Rothko 04:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with the namespaced version. Also, I believe most of those keep votes are sockpuppets.  The person who started calling others sockpuppets must have been mistaken. Goncharova 04:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree too with the namespaced version. I am also disappointed in the petty name calling.  For shame. Matisse 04:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I concur with cleaning with article space with the new namespace. I think those people calling others sockpuppets might have been scared that this article would have been deleted.  That might be the reason for the labeling. Jasper J 04:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I like that namespace version too. I changed my vote even with the allegation of being a sockpuppet.  Would a sockpuppet do that, huh? Leger 04:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, keep the namespace as "The Outer Limits (1995) episode:". I have no idea why someone would call me a sockpuppet even after I provided a well reasoned argument for deleting this article. Magritte


 * Comment: There may not be episode naming precedents, but there is certainly a wikipedia precedent:  If the episode titles are unique, just the name.  If something else comes along with the same title, add a qualifier in parentheses afterwards and create a disambiguation page.  Why is this a problem? The Steve 04:29, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Jasper J 04:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that idea. Rothko 04:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I prefer the new namespace. Goncharova 04:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I am also disinclined with doing away with the new namespace. Matisse 04:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The current name should stay the way it is. Leger 04:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote to keep the current name as it is. Magritte 04:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * All you sock puppets can pipe down. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess I was mainly thinking that people seem to sometimes have objections to pages for small components of a noteworthy whole.  It's come up with TV episodes (this, and The Cast Away Cat Princess' Prelude), I know there's at least one Digimon on the VfD page (Jagamon), and it's happened with college organizations (Votes for deletion/Virginia Tech Tae Kwon Do, though that may have been vanity as well).  It seemed like people might have less objections if there were some way to organize pages to indicate that they were being used to explain a larger topic.  And frankly, I agree with Gavin's comment that I think it would look more professional.  If you search wikipedia for "call long distance", you find a link to Long Distance Call, and it's not particularly obvious that that's a Twilight Zone episode.
 * I've probably also had in my mind that I think most people won't search for a TV episode by typing the name into the Search box and expecting the episode to appear; I think that people will search for episodes by looking up the series, and then clicking on a "List of episodes" link. I rarely know the name of individual TV episodes.  Then again, if people are looking for Jagamon, I can imagine them typing that in, instead of Digimon: Jagamon, so I'm not sure that my argument is completely solid.
 * The current method also makes it harder to predict where pages are for experienced users. I just looked for information on the Buffy episode "Hush", and it wasn't obvious that it was at Hush (Buffy episode) rather than Hush. It's certainly not obvious that the Buffy character "Angel" is at Angel (vampire).  We have an enormous number of very similar articles about fictional characters, TV episodes, video game monsters, etc., and I think it would be helpful to standardize their positions a bit.
 * Finally, I really think that Buffy character: Angel and Twilight Zone episode: Long Distance Call, or Buffy: Characters: Angel and Twilight Zone: Episodes: Long Distance Call, just look a lot better than Angel (vampire) and Long Distance Call (Twilight Zone).   Creidieki 10:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Try creating a formal proposal with a similar format as Rating_system. I'd like to hear more about the details of your naming standardization.  Also, try to include how the use of categories Categorization or disambiguation pages Disambiguation fails to address television naming issues that your naming standardization can.  If it's good, then there would be community consensus to implement it.  If it doesn't work out, at least you tried.  RockNRoll 18:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is this even being considered? See Do not use subpages. This seems to me to be an attempt to de facto reintroduce a system that was replaced because it failed. Ambivalenthysteria 13:28, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I still stand my vote to Delete this non-notable topic. And I have proof that this is not notable at all.  After careful research, I discovered that this particular episode is sold separately and is NOT packed with other episodes.  Here is the video for sale .  And here is MGM's attempt to sell this awful series: .  This evidence clearly shows that The Sandkings wasn't even good enough to bundle with other episodes in a DVD set.  Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is to delete this article immediately because it is not notable.  If MGM thought it was any good, it would have bundled it with other episodes in its DVD sets of the revival Outer Limits series.  Rothko 05:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * With the evidence presented above, I change my vote to Delete. I also did my own research via Google, and look at how many hits it got. .  It got ZERO hits, and only an Amazon ad for DVD's is displayed.  It clearly FAILS the Google test.  Surely, some of those keep sockpuppets must be convinced that this article needs to be removed from this professional encyclopedia. Leger 05:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Interesting. I read the above evidence, but wasn't convinced, so I did my own work.  And I found an expert in the field of television and this is what he had to say about the new series: "Fast forward to the 90's, and this show has become liberal claptrap, with the plots of the show being nothing more than scanty window dressing to cover up the writers blatantly liberal agenda." .  Clearly, more people will now vote to delete after an EXPERT has said this series is nothing but liberal claptrap.  I vote to Delete this article and I still wonder what's with the unfounded sockpuppet name calling. Goncharova 05:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above three. I still vote to Delete this article.  I think all the sockpuppet name calling is just to make up for the LACK of evidence to keep this article.  So far, I've read a lot of convincing evidence above to delete this article.  I also found more evidence in support for deleting this article.  Apparently, this episode LOST out on an Emmy award.  The actor Beau Bridges LOST the Emmy for Outstanding Guest Actor to a show called Picket Fences.   Obviously, an encyclopedia wouldn't include an episode where the "star" didn't even win an award for his performance.  An encylcopedia is about notable things and obviously losing out on an award is not notable.  Please delete when the 5 days are over. Thanks. Jasper J 05:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely convinced that the sockpuppet allegations is an attempt to undermine the delete vote. I'm sticking to Delete this article.  I also did some research, and I found out this episode also lost out on another award, a Gemini Award.  Two actors from this episode were nominated for the Gemini Award for Best Actor in a Dramatic Program or Miniseries and BOTH of them LOST.   .  Clearly, a show that keeps on losing out on awards is not something that belongs in an encyclopedia.  I hope all the evidence convinces some of those keep votes to delete this non-notable episode. Matisse 05:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''Real comments should be added above the dividing line before the various sockpuppetry. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 07:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)''
 * Delete. DuChamp 06:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Consider this a formal warning. Stop using sockpuppets. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Another blatant attempt to bolster the keep votes by falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet. It boggles the mind what people would do to make up for their lack of evidence to keep this article. DuChamp 06:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Considering how a flock of new users appeared all just to vote the same way on this VfD without any previous edits, all with user names ripped out of art history... Not exactly a clever subterfuge.  And not especially clever to argue against an episode's notability by claiming that it lost awards&mdash;the very fact that it was singled out for award nominations speaks of its notability.  Or should we delete the article on Pulp Fiction because Forrest Gump bested it for Best Picture?  Postdlf 22:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone would have listened to my reasons for deleting this article if it only came from 1 person. Besides, the truth is that NO proof has been presented that this article deserves to stay.  So far, there is a plethora of evidence for deleting this article for the reason non-notability.  The losing out on the awards is just one factor.  There is the suspicious MGM move to sell this one episode separately instead of bundling it with other season one episodes.  There is the proof of 0 Google hits and there is the opinion of the sci fi expert.  I'm confident some of those keep votes will change their minds once they get a chance to read the evidence for deleting this article.  I just hope they read it before the vfd deadline comes.  The user Williamb proves my point.  I doubt it was just a coincidence that a Delete vote came after I posted all the evidence of non-notability and I'm willing to bet that any more new votes from legitimate users will be delete.  J Pollock 06:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand: it's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of argument. The criteria for deletion are flexible. If you think an article should be deleted, you need to convince people to support you, not to prove to them that you are correct. You need to rally support from real users, not sockpuppets. And if your arguments aren't enough to convince other users to support you, you'll just have to live with that. In the meantime, the sockpuppet techinque you've employed is despicable, it only serves to cloud and clog up the argument, and you don't deserve the respect of your wikipeers.--Woggly 08:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. It looks like it's too little too late for this article.  However, in the future, if I ever come across an article I feel strongly about it's deletion I'll try to rally people for support rather than use sockpuppets.  J Pollock 06:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If you mean this sincerely, I'm very glad. Using sockpuppets is definitely a way to get attention. So is demonstrating in the nude, or blocking the highway with your vehicle. The question is whether that's the kind of attention you really want. Woggly 08:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

THIS DICUSSION IS NOW CLOSED: Even disregarding the sockpuppet contribution, the consensus is to keep. I choose to ignore all votes from users whose only activity is to vote in this debate, whether they are technically 'sockpuppets' or not. Questions of renaming and namespace I leave to the wider community. DJ Clayworth 21:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)