Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time After Time (Grey's Anatomy)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Time After Time (Grey&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( 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) 01:10, 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) 03:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, episode features an Emmy-winning performance, which should be easy enough to source.  bd2412  T 21:32, 4 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. It even takes a while to write a proper response to each AfD; it requires at least reading the article,and ideally thinking about it, unlike the explicitly identical AfD nomination. 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. . DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and condense the plot section . Unlike most of the other articles nominated, the plot section is more than long enough, and a little too detailed--perhaps too detailed to be fully coherent. It also goes into motivation a little more than it should--not that the motivation and connections of most of the characters in this show are not perfectly obvious (to the point of tedium; this is one of the few such series I've even watched, but I gave up after the 2nd series long before this episode).    An excessively  sharp reduction into a list would make it even less coherent. What it needs is a more careful approach to what is significant detail.   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.
 * Keep per BD2412, should be notable - needs cleanup, not deletion. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would that make every Emmy nominated episode of every show to be notable?Curb Chain (talk) 07:48, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per BD2412, there should be notability with the Emmy nomination.-- Stv Fett erly  (Edits)  17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Numerous Grey's Anatomy episodes have been serially nominated. More general discussion can be found at Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).--Milowent • hasspoken  14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There may be some question about the notability of some of the many Grey's Anatomy nominations. But the Emmy Award clinches this one as a keep for me. Rlendog (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the Emmy win. But the whole recap needs to be trimmed to 1 paragraph.  See also my comments at Articles for deletion/If Tomorrow Never Comes (Grey's Anatomy).  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:18, 17 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.