Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torchwood (series 1)


 * 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. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood (series 1)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Content fork of Torchwood, List of Torchwood episodes and the acompanying episode articles, therefor basically redundant. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant Doc Strange (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant. 23skidoo (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah... This article is not redundant. That's like saying History of Scotland is redundant because Scotland has information about its history.  Therefore, I say keep and possibly move to List of Torchwood episodes because the current list does not go into such detail.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  round of applause  18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and halt all activities per arbcom. Plus, there is currently an RfC at WP:EPISODE, which may very well determine to get rid of non-notability-establishing episode articles in favor of season articles. This article is already ahead of that proposal. – sgeureka t•c 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Is it just deleting and undeleting, or are we to halt editing as well?  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  round of applause  20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom says no-one (party or not party of that case) is to delete or undelete (or redirect and unredirect) fiction articles related to episodes and characters. There have been no blocks for editing (including trimming and expanding) as of now, but many AfDs and TfDs have already been speedy closed. – sgeureka t•c 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with WP:EPISODE or arbcom; this is just a fork from already existing articles with a different layout. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It does indeed. It is an episode related article, if I'm not mistaken.  I still endorse the moving to List of Torchwood episodes and just adding the second seasons episodes to the end.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  round of applause  20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken; all the information already exists in existing articles. ArbCom's ruling was about deleting existing artilces, not content forks. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO this is an existing article. For instance, The Simpsons (season 9) is still here, even though all information is in linked articles.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  round of applause  21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's barely a month old. List of Torchwood episodes already lists all episodes, and the episode articles already contain all other information. Not to belittle the author, but this is just a glorified list with plot summaries; it adds nothing to the existing list and articles, and with only two series produced so far, Series 1 really doesn't warrant it's own article. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And to reply to the whole ArbCom case... If anything, this could be construed to derail that whole process in order to sway ArbCom into ruling in favor of season article instead of episode articles. When that happens, a whole truckload of information will be lost. When such a high profile case is under consideration, it is best to leave the current structure intact, and not create content forks. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article does list all of the articles, but no more. If I were a regular viewer looking for information, I would like an article like this, without having to click links to access any useful information.  On the article, the information is all there ready to be looked at, without unnecessary filtering as is on virtually all of the episode articles themselves.  And I don't think your ArbCom conclusion follows.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  round of applause  22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (deindent) The only information it adds are the summaries. As it stands, it is a copy of existing information. The episode articles contain so much more information regarding production and such, while the main Torchwood article has all the information that is currently in the lead. A fork is unnecessary and only de-organizes the available information even more. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not "deorganise" information. I still believe that it could be moved to List of Torchwood episodes to sruce up the existing list.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  round of applause  18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to move, except the plot summaries. And the lead is already covered in the Torchwood article. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The plot summaries are, IMO, better than the current episode articles, as they are all plot and no information otherwise. I still think of the Simpsons example, as the lead for that is covered in other articles, as well as the plot summaries.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  round of applause  21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article's plot summaries contain more information, as do the article themselves. They contain information regarding production, reception and continuity. This article is just a collection of short synopsis summaries. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with StuartDD for the time being. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  <sup style="color:#666666;">it seems the winds have stopped...  20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WBOSITG, this should not be deleted. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep changed my mind   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  20:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This would be a nice article if the episodes articles got deleted, but we still have the articles just now. I think we should wait a bit and see what happens with the new notability rules.  Stuart  DD  contributions 21:55, 8 February 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.