Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwritten (House)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Unwritten (House)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable episode. Got a WP:ROUTINE review from IGN but I found no other sources. One review is not enough to make a TV episode notable. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The edit summary for the redirect, "unsourced", was untrue, since the article already contained a link to an AV Club review. Whether that and the IGN item are too "routine" to qualify is a different question. The AV Club review goes beyond recapitulating the plot, offering commentary on the overall direction the show had taken up to that point. The Los Angeles Times went to the trouble of asking a neurophysiologist, a neurosurgeon, and a bioethicist about the episode . I've found myself sharing the "redirect the page that reads like a fan wiki" sentiment in the past, but I don't think that applies here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also at least a mention in this book, but I am unable to see the relevant page in the GB preview. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources have been found giving it significant coverage so the general notability guidelines are kept.  D r e a m Focus  04:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, now reviews (which are usually required for films/tv shows to pass notability requirements) are now being called 'ROUTINE' and not enough to pass guidelines? What is a 'routine' review? Did Siskel and Ebert reviews not count for decades because they 'routinely' reviewed movies each week? Review cited and ones listed above pass guidelines. Another failed WP:BEFORE Donald D23   talk to me  22:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep invalid AfD per above. Artw (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per reliable sources pointed out by XOR'easter. Pika voom  Talk 13:00, 20 June 2022 (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.