Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror 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, though noting the nomination does not appear to have been made in bad faith (as was alleged). – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable television episode from Masters of Horror. Fails all notability requirements for having a stand alone episode article (WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:MOSTV. The only content is an excessive long plot summary (863 words) and some unsourced material about its origins. Originally redirected to List of Masters of Horror episodes as per guidelines, however was twice reverted as vandalism, then a third time under the claim that this is a film not a television episode. It has never aired separately, is less than an hour in length, and was created specifically to be an episode of this television series. The article full considers it an episode as well.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —--  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Artiocle needs improvement and citeation, not deletion. As do most of the episode entries for the matsers of horror series, which Collectonian seems to be on a bit of a spree with. Howabout slowing down and actually fixing stuff instead of the knee jerk deletions/redirects? Artw (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They aren't knee-jerk. I'm a member of the TV project and cleaning up TV and episode articles is what I do. The episodes are all unnnotable as noted in the edit summaries and the deletion note above. No one has even touched most of these for a month or longer until I actually added REAL content to the Masters of Horror article and created the episode list it hadn't even had before. While not actually help fix by expanding the summaries in the episode list instead of trying to keep these mini-novellas that serve no valid purpose. Of course, your uncivil reply to the polite question on your talk page really answers the question already. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're part of some knee jerk deltionist collective? Same thing. Well at leats you AFDed this one rather than just redirecting it, which is particularly unhelful as it doesn't really notify anyone or give anyone a chance to work on it. Why are you deletionists always in such a desperate rush anyway? Artw (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable.  D C E dwards 1966  00:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- Brief plot summaries are OK as part of proper coverage of notable fictional material. Extensive plot summaries, particularly when they form the whole content of the article, are not OK and especially in a case like this where the episode's whole claim to notability is inherited from the series. Reyk  YO!  01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Weak Keep because of the expansion and sourcing that's happened since I first voted. I'm still not entirely convinced about notability- comments by the director and lead actor aren't decisive- but I think it should get the benefit of the doubt. Reyk  YO!  22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination tells us that this is a case of WP:POINT.  The nominator actually wished to redirect the article to a list of episodes in the manner of other disruptive editors such as TTN.  Because other editors have opposed this, the article is brought here as a forum-shopping tactic.  Note that we have no discussion on the article's talk page, which ought to have been the first stage in dispute resolution.  As for the article, we might consider merging it with the main article on the prize-winning story: The Screwfly Solution and deletion would be obviously unhelpful in this.  By the way, the excellent story concerns an plague which causes people to go on a spree of irrational destruction which they rationalise with a bizarre ideology.  There turns out to be an ulterior motive behind this.  Food for thought...   Colonel Warden (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SK — if any other users agree that the article should be deleted, it is no longer eligible for a speedy keep. Please consider revisiting your "vote". Stifle (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Not a case of WP:POINT, case of it can't be redirected and it is a contested "deletion" per Artw's on definition of deletion and his support of it being brought here instead. Contested deletions are brought to AfD and it is not "forum-shopping". Discussion has occurred at the main article page and the episode list page, wholly appropriate places to discuss a single episode among a group. Nor is it a valid speedy per Stifle. What the heck does that story have to do with anything, or is that supposed to be some sort of backhanded personal attack (I'd hope not, as while you and I rarely agree on deletion discussions, you usually are polite in them). If its merged, I would think it should be to the episode list. Though based on the short story, it is purely about the episode, not the story. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The story is the essential content while the Masters of Horror branding seems comparatively unimportant. The interesting details are the way in which the screenwriter and director extended and presented the original story.  Because the story is distinct and separate from others presented under this branding, it should be considered separately.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, or merge and redirect to a list of episodes. Please note that plot summaries are discouraged on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that it is Wikipedia policy to encourage imperfect articles. I have made a start on adding additional material and sources to this article.  Deletion will not assist this process of improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * merge and redirect to list of episodes. The material is interesting (but overlong) and should not be deleted. lk (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain why, if the material is too long, you would merge to an article which, by its nature, will be even longer. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Too much summary without real world context. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have spent several hours raising the number of sources to the auspicious number of 8, so demonstrating that the nomination's claim that the topic is not notable is a blatant falsehood and violates the emphatic guidance of WP:BEFORE: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Note also that Collectonian is starting to establish a pattern of singling out episodes with a strong feminist subtext to bring here. (c.f. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 06:11, August 9, 2008
 * Um, WTF? "Strong Feminist subtext" Who gives a rats ass about that and where is there "feminist" anything in this episode? Hell, define feminist subtext please because I don't pay attention to such nonsense and am not sure what you even mean. I guess Lassie has feminist subtexts too, and every other TV series I've worked to merge bad episode articles into better quality featured episodes. Stop pulling red herrings out of your hat and stick to the topic, not attacking the editor with such BS crap. I used to have some modicum of respect for you, but if you must sink this low to argue against an AfD I nominated, I don't anymore. As for the sources: 1 is a French book with no page number or anything to verify you actually say a reference to this episode (and not the source book) in it (and I seriously doubt you just happen to own that book and read excellent French); #4 (Reuters) is a simple one line advertisement for the upcoming second season of the series, not significant coverage of anything and it adds nothing at all; 5 is about the series in general, and again not significant or specific coverage of this single episode; 6 is a link to the front end of a site that doesn't even mention the episode. If you're gonna go hunt for sources. So what you really have are 3 reviews of the DVD and one interview on the production of the episode, all of which can fit very nicely in an episode list. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first question, note that the film is in the category Feminist Films and there are numerous scholarly sources for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Colonel Warden has done a good job improving the article and it has plenty of potential to be improved further. (Emperor (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Strong keep - I would like to volunteer to tighten the summaries and improve the articles, for a start. Deleting all of these episode articles would result in an unacceptable loss of information, as little included in them will ever make it into the list article.  The list should have been created before the individual article pages, but hey, things don't always proceed in an ideal fashion.  I feel that the case for deletion according to WP:EPISODE is not as clear cut as it's being presented, either.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, no one is saying delete them all. Indeed, I've expanded the one for "Imprint" (the unaired episode). The discussion on merge/redirect for the rest is proceeding on the main talk page and the episode talk page. Right now, most of the individual articles have little information besides the plot summaries and IMDB copy/paste trivia. For the plots, if they were pared down to the appropriate length (200-400 words) they would be quite welcome is the current episode list and much preferable to teasers there now. Of course, if you feel the episode list is an appropriate split from the main article, you also want to say so at Talk:Masters of Horror, as Colonel Warden has decided the TV project's guidelines advocate "content forks" and cause dissension, so he is threatening to AfD it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a solution where existing articles are kept, improved, and linked from your ep list, which we should also keep. I will go say as much at the talk page as well.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 21:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the edits thathave been made to establish notability. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The minimum for notability has been established and surpassed. It's now a nice little article.  A bit of plot tightening wouldn't hurt.  Good job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge and redirect) to the LOE per WP:NOT. Clear cut. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The LOE has been deleted at the nominator's request and so your suggestion is moot. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go look up moot. Delete and Redirect per Collectonian below to the list at MoH. Eusebeus (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * moot, adj. open to argument, debatable; uncertain, doubtful; unable to be firmly resolved. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment List of Masters of Horror episodes has been deleted and the original "episode list" has been restored to Masters of Horror. Those agreeing with merge/redirect may wish to update their comments to reflect the new target. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:08, 11 August 2008 (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.