Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Self-Destruct Button


 * 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   redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 1). Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Self-Destruct Button

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Same problems as Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  00:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references.  Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively   frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which  we have enough. Trying to remove articles like this makes it more difficult to deal with the many ones that do urgently need deletion . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, especially expanding the plot section . The article (as for the other articles in the series) meets NOT PLOT:  there are about three times as many words of unduplicated information about production elements as about the plot. What the plot section needs is expansion: various patients are mentioned, but we are not told what becomes of them. That's using a TEASER, rather than fully encyclopedic writing; it's too much like a TV guide. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even worse. A plot summary needs to be long enough to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced.


 * Redirect or delete. Article has existed for five years and has been tagged for apparently lacking notability for one year, but it still doesn't have any sources. This seems sufficient proof that either it is non-notable, or no-one wants to work on it to pass WP:SPINOUT. The episode list can take care of the plot and relevant production data just fine; anything else seems to be WP:PLOT, WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. – sgeureka t•c 15:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to season article. With all the serial noms, I do not have time to check each one for notability.  But even any that are not notable should be redirected to the season article per WP:TVEP. Rlendog (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 1). Nothing about this particular episode is individually notable.  See also my comments at Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 01:42, 18 February 2012 (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.