Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth & Consequences


 * 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 with a suggestion to merge the content in the history to List of Heroes episodes by someone more knowledgeable on the subject. Regardless of where the consensus stands on original research and plot synthesis, there have been insufficient sources presented in this discussion (and the article) for me to ignore the arguments that this is unsourced and hence fails WP:V at this stage. So, what I have found to be the consensus is that, as a result of this discussion, the article is to be redirected and anyone can get the old content and modify it into the central article, because the arguments about WP:V are persuasive. Applying a combination of strength of rationale and frequency of rationale, I feel that there is a consensus to merge and redirect. However, in future, I respectfully request that merge discussions take place editorially.

I have protected the redirect per WP:CSD and to uphold this consensus. If you feel you have written (in your sandbox) an article which counters all these concerns, please file a deletion review to have the draft evaluated by a consensus to see if it can be reinstated in place of the redirect. Similarily, if you disagree with this close, feel free to ask for a review also.  Daniel  05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Truth & Consequences
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, (nbc is not a reliable source in this case, in the wikipedia sense of the word), I can't find any third party sources to verify the lengthy plot summary that fills 90% of the page.
 * I would also like to point out the apparent lack of self-discipline of the Heroes wikiproject. In this diff you can see they acknowledge the need to merge the individual articles into one list, and set it as one of their tasks.  This was 2 months and 3 weeks ago.  Not only have they not got round to starting the process as far as I can see, but they also created a whole load more articles on individual episodes, such as this one created by User:Edokter, who is a member of the heroes wikiproject.
 * Furthermore they keep adding random non-free screenshots of random parts of the episode into the infoboxes. How can these images significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic when they show only about 0.1% of the episode ?
 * Please note that WP:Episode seems to be highly disputed now, especially by the users writing these articles, so as a courtesy to them I will not base this nomination on that guideline. Please consider this article as any other that has no sources, and appears to be original research based on simply watching the series.   The heroes TV series is notable, each episode in itself is not, though the occasional ones may be.


 * Deletion request proposed on the basis of All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed and Content not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:DEL and WP:NOT).  Jackaranga (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep with no predujice to a merge; WP:EPISODE specifically request users do not nominate episode articles for deletion. Will (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is unacceptable as an argument for speedy keeping. The nomination is, as clearly stated above, that the article is original research and unverifiable.  WP:EPISODE does not override our content policies and our Deletion policy.  Articles that are original research and unverifiable are discussed at AFD and deleted.  If you want to make an argument that is not in contravention of our content and deletion policies here, you need to show that this article is both verifiable and not original research, by citing sources where this subject has already been discussed and documented outside of Wikipedia first.  You have not done so.  Certainly the article itself does not.  If WP:EPISODE is guiding editors in the direction of abrogating the project's fundamental content policies, then WP:EPISODE is faulty and should be fixed. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Uncle G, I believe you are quite right, policy supersedes guidelines, also Sceptre the WP:EPISODE says Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research, this is exactly why I am nominating this article for deletion because I believe it is unverifiable and original research, please refer to the first 3 words of the nomination. This put aside I would like to base the AfD on policy only as the episode guideline seems to be disputed at the moment.  This having been said, if anyone of you would like to merge the article, please feel free to do so within the 7 day AfD period and I will be more than happy to remove the nomination.  However saying merge and then more than 2 months later still not having done it, as I showed above is not a solution.  Jackaranga (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But what is the ultimate point of actually pressing the delete button on this page? A redirect to the LoE would be much easier, and less drama. And in this case, it's a plausible redirect term for Truth and Consequences (the game show, the NM town, etc). Will (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for the record, the TV game show and the New Mexico town are Truth or Consequences and Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. Note the difference. "or," not "and." Edison (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, cite better sources and condense plot. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The episode itself serves as a source for the majority of the information on the article. You don't need a third party source for that sort of information that is freely available in the episode. Supposition and deriving meaning from the episode and putting it into the article is original research, but detailing the plot and happenings on screen in the episode are not. Ben W Bell   talk  17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The source only cites the air date, for which NBC is the only reliable source. WP:OR is largely exempt for plots, as the only way to complile them is to watch the show and descirbe the plot yourself; no third-party is able to help you there. I will state that the article lacks real-world context, ie. production and critical reception. But having a plot alone is better then no article as all. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There are no exemptions to the No original research policy.  It is a fundamental policy that covers all content.  If no third party has already done the research, then the primary research doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  It is inappropriate for editors to watch a television show and then create primary documentation of that television show in Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  If a work of fiction's plot is not already documented outside of Wikipedia, it may not be documented inside of Wikipedia, per our Verifiability and No original research policies.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source.  It is not a place for documenting the undocumented.  "Wiki" means fast, not first.  It is not the place to come to write up the plot of a television show as it airs &mdash; as is exactly what has happened here. So, once again: Please cite sources to demonstrate that this television show has already been discussed and documented outside of Wikipedia first.  You have not done so, and, as such, have failed to rebut the argument that this is original research and primary documentation of the heretofore undocumented.  Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Except watching a program and describing the plot, as long as you don't put an interpretation on it, is not original research. The episode itself is the reference. By your definition of original research everything is original research. By that definition finding a reference and putting it in your own words is OR, just locating a reference would be OR, which is isn't. The information for a TV episode is easily verifiable from watching an episode, this is no different to reading it in a book or reading it on a news website and does not constitute original research. Even the Wikipedia article defines OR as "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." The data on the episode page is a summary and synthesis of a previous publication [the original broadcast]. Ben W Bell   talk  19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Strongly agree with Ben W Bell on his refutation of the OR claims,--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Heroes episodes or a seasonal list. While I disagree that the nominator has shown that the Wikiproject believes the articles should be merged (the diff shows that they recognize the need to condense the plot summaries) I do agree that with the lack of independent reliable sources about the episode it is best to have the episodes in a single list. Should sources later develop that discuss particular episodes in detail, then I would have no prejudice against recreating the article but as it now stands the article should be M&Red. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep with no prejudice to merge; assertions regarding "original research" are incorrect and do not apply here. Descriptions of the plot do not constitute original research; that would only be valid if there were attempts to interpret what was depicted. --Ckatz chat spy  21:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Heroes episodes. Stand-alone articles consisting of lengthy and overly detailed plot summaries based only on watching the episode are unencyclopedic and contrary to WP:OR and WP:N. If a show is notable, then an episode list is appropriate. If an individual episode garners awards or critical commentary and analysis in independent and reliable sources, then an article about it might be appropriate. Edison (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article consists of a plot description and some production minutae. I have no objection to a non-interpretive synopsis of a plot being primarily sourced provided it is referenced  and contains no opinions, interpretations, or conclusions.  I agree with the nominator, and while I would prefer a more Wikipedia-appropriate reliable source than the publisher themselves, I would not nominate for deletion on those grounds alone, surely those minutae can be sourced elsewhere given some time. However, this article consists of a plot description and some production minutae.  It provides no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the Wikipedia notability guideline in a nutshell.  All things considered: notability, poor sourcing/referencing, and PLOT?  Delete.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify. Messy, but a little cutting and a cite or two more can fix the problem. Hit show, but not my thing. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This assumes that there are additional cites to reliable sources. None have as yet been forthcoming in the course of this discussion. What sources do you put forward in support of your opinion? Otto4711 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, applying OR to this makes no sense. If you want more sources, is good - it's a blog, but it's the director's blog and can be considered reliable for this article.- gadfium  01:47, 8 January 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.