Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Episode summaries


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No consensus. I will mark this as an essay, though: not withstanding the basic close, I think there is a consensus in the comments to mark the page with some sort of "this is not policy" tag. Xoloz 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode summaries
Delete "This page simply states that episode summaries should follow the same rules as all other articles." is something that is already noted on all relevant guidelines, policies, etc. This essay does a bad job of what existing guidelines (such as WP:FICT and WP:WAF) and policy (WP:NOT #7) already do. Ned Scott 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I almost forgot, Centralized discussion/Television episodes. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, keep the essay. This is harmless, it's relatively new, I'd like to give this more time to see if it goes anywhere. Don't care if any shortcuts to it are re-appropriated. The centralized discussion thing seems dead but why not keep it for historical value? --W.marsh 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's basically a re-wording of what the other guidelines already say. I could understand if it was proposing or suggesting a new idea. -- Ned Scott 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete First of all, this is one user's idea pushing- the author of the essay wrote it because he frequently attempted to AfD episode summaries with no success (and by "frequently", I mean that he nominated Family Guy episode articles for deletion, and after they were kept nearly unanimously, AfD'd them again less than one month later). The note that states "This page illustrates a part of the concept of other policies in Wikipedia. The nature of the page, however, makes pinning it down as 'official' or a 'guideline' unhelpful and possibly paradoxical. Hence, it should be considered an example of a specific part of those policies, not a rule or a guideline." makes it seem as if this is a simple off-shoot of an official policy, and an off-shoot that many people agree upon; this, of course, is untrue. Also, WP:NOT covers episode summaries, so it's not as if this page is even necessary. Finally, the essay is only a few sentences long, yet is repetitive and poorly written, and it takes up an WP: name that could be put to much better use. -- Kicking222 03:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey. First, the reason i nommed the articles twice was... because.. I was an idiot. Mostly. Second, I wasn't planning on using this as rationale for a third AFD, but I was going to amke a template saying that "Per WP:EPISODE, this section needs references or sources, as it is not simply a summary, but an interpretation." However, I neglected/forgot about WP:EPISODE,so... yeah. I'd say Keep in WP space so I can adopt and expand it soon. -- Chris   chat   edits   essays    23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, move, or userfy This is an essay, and so shouldn't be deleted or rejected unless written in bad faith. If the essay's name is taking up a slot that needs to be used for something else it can always be renamed. If it's deemed to be really bad by consensus (my view is that it's somewhat redundant but harmless) it should be userfied to its creator's userspace rather than deleted outright. --ais523 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support moving it to his userspace. -- Ned Scott 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

'''This MfD is being relisted for further consideration. Please share your opinion if you haven't already done so.''' Xoloz 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant. -- Selmo  (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Jo  e  I  23:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag as historical. Rossami (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep tag as essay until it says something non-obvious and is considered as policy or guideline. Septentrionalis 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Unless a policy/guideline/essay/whatever contributes something to the running of the encyclopaedia, it should be removed to avoid instruction creep. The greater the number of policy/pseudo-policy pages, the more potential for wikilawyering, as in "Why did you delete article x? There was nothing wrong with it according to Episode summaries!" --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:50, 1 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.