Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Within (The X-Files)


 * 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 and expand (noting as cleanup). (non-admin closure) Alpha 4615 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Within (The X-Files)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a meaningful plot summary. Sceptre (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not the best of articles, but it (now?) has a short but meaningful plot summary. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The episode list has a better plot summary. treelo  radda  16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of The X-FIles Episodes. Jtrainor (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources exists, including Myth-X, Examinations: An Unauthorized Look at Seasons 6-9 of the X-Files: Featuring the Reviews of Unbound I, and Media Spectacle; and apparently an issue of Cinefantastique from 2001, though from the Google Books snippet I can't quite figure out which issue or how much coverage is there. DHowell (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  01:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Observation. It would seem to me that this is not a question to be decided at this single article's AfD.  I mean, there should probably be a blanket rule, that either indidual episodes of X-Files are article-noteworthy or they're not.  I don't care either way, I just can't see how this makes sense, hashing out each individual episode, one at a time.  Un  sch  ool  02:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, the episode "Chimera" was kept in a past AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Point of fact: This one article was brought to AfD, and it is this article that needs a determination. All good things in their own good time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Expand My own preferred compromise is that the default treatment should be to merge, with adequate coverage of each in the merged article.  I agree with  the nominator about the absurdly small amount of content here, but there are references from which the article can be expanded, so we do not need the last resort of deletion.   A plot summary has to at least describe the plot to be of any value. The present one is just a teaser, and does not say what happens in the episode. This is wholly wrong, merged or separate. WP is not a program guide.   I agree with everything Sceptre says about the deficiencies, except that the solution is to expand, not remove.  DGG (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Episode stub that can be expanded. Being a small article shouldn't be grounds for deletion.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I removed the plot summary, since it was copied from imdb. That said, the X-Files is a pretty important show, and there are several episode guides (and probably a few magazine articles) that could be used to expand these articles. Unfortunately, I haven't seen this episode, so there's not much I can do myself. Zagalejo^^^ 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Expand, rather than having an AFD tag, this article simply needs an expand tag.X-Files is a popular show and as this is the opening episode it would qualify for WP:N.Smallman12q (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keep and Expand. Sweet little stub has an assertion of notability which is properly sourced. FA articles from little stubs grow.... but not if the stubs are tossed on the trashpile before they have a chance. Will this grow? Quite likely? Will it improve? Almost certainly. Will it become an FA? Maybe not... but its remaining can serve to improve wiki, and that's why we're all here.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was reading the guidelines of assessing articles, and the article for atom started off as a stub, and is now a FA. There are plenty of Simpsons episodes that have gone from stub to GA too!  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep RE: "Substub article with literally no content worth merging, not even a meaningful plot summary." I keep having to quote to the same nominators of AfDs the same rules: WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (options), Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." This complaint is a content complaint.  Deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article. It is almost to the point that a RfC should be called on nominators who ignore these rules. Ikip (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per the above - some inline sources would be nice tpp. Artw (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per DHowell above. MuffledThud (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2009 (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.