Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled 16th episode of Lost season 3


 * 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 delete - right now, it is inherently speculative. Let a proper article be written at the appropriate time. Metamagician3000 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Untitled 16th episode of Lost season 3

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Episode title isn't confirmed yet. This thing has been moved already 2 times, and it's likely it'll be moved another 2 times before it airs. I'm taking this to AFD, because this is just pollution of wikipedia history. It's something else to create articles for episodes for which at least the name is known, but to create articles and move them around endlessly is just stupid. If this AFD succeeds, i'll hope it will be a precedent for any new articles on episodes, that at least a NAME should be known, and the fact that the episode will actually air at one time should be verifiable. Episode articles are deemed questionable among a large group of editors already, if we start allowing these kinds of things, it will only get worse and those editors are right in deeming these articles questionable in encyclopedic nature. If people want to write something about such an episode, they can do so on the Talk page of the series. The infobox of the last "officially confirmed" episode can point people there. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE I do not question the contents of the article itself, I question the fact that we don't speedy delete anything that is so far into the future that we cannot name it properly yet and spawns a new article like that every week the thing is on the air. When a name of a television ep is confirmed, creating the article is no problem. Before that time all such episode articles should be deleted.


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If you don't know the name of an episode, there shouldn't be an article on it. Period. PTO 23:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It may not have a name, but the episode is still scheduled and planned and all that. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not anything new, actually, in regards to have articles for unnamed episodes (some shows don't have titles), there is a consensus to improve these articles, not delete (WP:EPISODE). Also airs soon, seems a waste to delete to be recreated. Matthew
 * The fact that this has never been PROMINENT enough for anyone to care is logical. That doesn't mean it's a good practice that we should start advertising. Also, WP:EPISODE says nothing about articles for which a name is not known, that was never the spirit of that debate. That debate was at a point where it was still very questionable to create episode articles at all. The fact that people would start creating them for episodes we know jack about (no pun intended), wasn't even phantomed at that time. To quote WP:EPISODE here is just not relevant. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Since we know this is going to air pretty soon, is it really speculation? I really don't see any strong reason to delete it, just improve the article. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep crystal ball doesn't apply, this article says nothing that can't be confirmed. Except, I'd like to see a ref for the "Juliet Centric" part. I don't see a problem with the article's name being moved, and that process will not be endless.  As far as polluting WP's history, I think it's the opposite, we should purposefully be saving the history.  Also, talk pages are not a substitute for articles, that sounds like fan site stuff.  I do think EPISODE is relevant, if we're ever going to have a page on this (which EPISODE speaks to), we should save this version's history.  Maybe you could have redirected it towards the LOE, but now that's kind of out of our hands with this AfD. - Peregrine Fisher 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per similar situation with Not in Portland AfDs (I'll have to dig up links). We have a Lost guideline about this kind of stuff, and there's no content to the article. I'm very surprised to see many familiar names suddenly supporting keep when they've so passionately have fought off this kind of pre-mature article and topic stuff in the past. How is this different from all those other times? Delete this nothing of a page that only encourages fan speculation and lets create a clean article once it airs, even if it's soon. There's no reason whatsoever to set such a bad example when we bust our asses to prevent these kinds of things. Nothing of value to keep, at all. I also find it wildly ironic that people are citing WP:EPISODE, which discourages individual episode articles unless that specific episode is notable. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, many of the keeps seem to think this is an AfD attacking individual episode articles rather than being an AfD for an unaired, unnamed, and no content topic. I'm not sure we're all on the same page here. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The only reason i moved it instead of AFDing it was the sourced statement about the "Charlie problem" (normally I'd want unsourced articles deleted). Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 11:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It will be moved to its true title on Monday when ABC releases an episode desciption. --thedemonhog 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I created this page when Carlton Cuse confirmed the episode title and some plot detail.  Now the producers have moved this episode to later in the series, it is confusing and unconfirmed.   S   e   rgeantBolt  (t,c) 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No opinion on the merit of this article, but, should the discussion here be merged with Articles for deletion/Untitled 17th episode of Lost season 3 ? I don't seen anything particularly special about either article which warrants a separate discussion. Neier 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware this article was AfD as well yet. I thought i'd stick to one of them for now and see how that would go, but apparently someone else thought differently --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:09, 19 March 2007 (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.