Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typical Plot Sequence of House (TV Series)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty ☀ 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical Plot Sequence of House (TV Series)
I was going to speedy this as OR, but then I noticed that the page creator has previously been involved in a dispute on the main House article about this exact section: namely, whether or not it counts as OR. After all, he says on the talk page, it's observable fact - you can get this information just by watching episodes of the show.

But it really doesn't feel right. What say you, o brethren? And as importantly, what are your reasons? DS 13:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. As an avid fan of this superb show (and I spend less than 3 hours a week watching television....) I would have to say that it appears to be true but the article's main problem is that it lacks citation; to be "typical", 50% or more of the shows would have to follow this pattern exactly and the article would have to show this. That could make it very, very long indeed. I don't know either actually - I agree that it feels unencyclopedic but I find it hard to grudge. Meh, a weak keep with citation required but I'll get back to you. Interesting nomination. Ac@osr 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge -- 9cds(talk) 14:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading about the original research/no sources, I think I'll change my vote to delete. -- 9cds(talk) 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and do not merge This is absolutely Original Research if the only reference given is "its obvious if you watch the show". Also, it is Non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a fan forum Bwithh 14:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.--StevenL 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - This should be dealt with in the main article. ScottW 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious stuff that it is okay to get from watching a TV show would be things like a character's name, appearance and maybe background. Analyzing episodes and coming up with a formula for the plots is clearly original research. If it is fairly accurate, that just makes it good original research. -- Kjkolb 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - amusing, but definitely original research, and POV in that it insinuates that the program (which I have never seen) is predictably written. —phh (t/c) 20:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no Merge per WP:NOR. Danny Lilithborne 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge With the main article about the series. Bryce 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. If the creator cited third party sources as references, that would be a different story. 23skidoo 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge This is information pertinent to the series and reflects valid criticism and thematic structure. NeoThe1 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bwithh -- Hirudo 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I like the show but come on, this is fancruft at its finest. The house page branches out into too many silly articles as it is. Policy based reasons include: POV, original research. --TrollHistorian 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; but if it actually cited a list of episodes which followed this "Typical Plot Sequence" (and the Unnecessary Titular Capitalisation were removed) to prove that it is indeed typical, I'd vote "keep". --Jacj 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Criticism of House (TV Series); This article is very accurate - and that is obervable if you watch it. I find it difficult to call it 'Original Research' when all that has been done is highlight specific details of the show. It is thus difficult to find sources for (hence I sway) - it could be prefaced with some caveat about being subjective (some viewers believe...) as long as reference to some episondes that follow this trend are added, I see no reason to delete it...
 * Delete and place a brief summary of the article in House (TV Series). Cigarette 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not merge This is clearly Original Research. It's content created by an editor to illustrate their point and has no place in an encyclopdia.  If you could find a reference where David Shore explains the formula for writing House, that would be acceptable.  This isn't even close. Elwood00 T 01:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and do not merge The entire article is original research and the authors point of view. It should be deleted and not merged with the House article. dposse 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no real point in merging: it's an unlikely search term. The obviously OR-ness of this article aside, I'm torn over the question of whether the original article could contain somewhat of information about the typical plot. I'm not that familiar with House but it seems like, for example, elemements that are common to each episode can be notable and verifiable. For example, each Simpson's episode starting with Bart drawing on the chalk board. But that doesn't appear to be the level of magnitude that we are dealing with here. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:20, 3 June 2006 (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.