Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11 Years Later

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. Article has been improved immensely since the nomination and relist, so the concerns about

WP:PLOT no longer hold true. ansh 666 06:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

11 Years Later

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely plot; attempted to redirect by standard method, but was reverted. No expansion has been given on the article since it was created and tagged. --

^TW 05:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep – The fact that the article is "entirely plot" and has long had an {{all plot}} tag is hardly a reason for deletion. Hell, {{all plot}} isn't even a content tag – it's a style tag!

speedily deleted
. [emphasis added]

Based on the standard that appears to be implied by this nomination, all stub-class articles and most start-class articles that have not been expanded in a few years should be deleted. To use such a standard would certainly
WP:STUB). 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas - The article has an excessively long plot section. The plot should be no longer than 500 words but it's around 1,000. It is weak in every area except the infobox and even that needs expansion. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The episode received enough secondary coverage as the pilot of the revival season, and the article is appropriately tagged to encourage expansion. Articles don't need to be perfect to exist. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged over a month ago and no such expansion has occurred. I see no proof in the article of enough "secondary coverage". -- ^TW 15:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because the article hasn't been expanded in the last month doesn't mean it won't be next month. The fact that tags have not been addressed is not a reason to delete the article, sorry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, it would be valid for deletion next month, then? And what does the article provide that no other article hasn't yet? I see a plot and one review, easily listable on the season article. -- ^TW 01:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It provides the possibility for an article that will be promoted from start class. What you're describing is very much in line with a start-class article. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is the concern, why was that not raised in the nomination? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per
WP:PLOT and endorses the deletion of articles like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You are right -- Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. But that is not a reason for deleting an article about a notable episode just because it has not yet been fully expanded. This article just needs to be expanded not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as being almost all plot a month ago,[1] yet no attempt to reduce the size of the plot or otherwise expand the the article was made until after Alex redirected it. Experience has shown that the longer an article sits in an unnaceptable state, the less chance there is that it will be fixed. People say articles can be fixed, but they never are. That's what happened to those 129 The West Wing episodes. An alternative to deletion is to move the article to draft space, which Alex suggested in this edit summary, but it never was. That's probably the best option at this point. The unimproved draft will probably be deleted in a few months but at least there is a bit of hope there. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't delete articles just because they are subpar. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not just sub-par, it consists almost entirely of a plot and
WP:PLOT, which is policy, says such articles shouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

If we're just going to ignore secondary coverage or critical reception and just focus on the plot tag, then I give up. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary coverage doesn't seem to cover much. Since the AfD tag was added, references added to the article are pretty trivial. Four were added to support the claim that the episode is the first episode of the ninth season, something that really didn't need references. Another two were added to support a claim regarding viewers, which are already mentioned in the episode list article. The entire "Ratings and reception" is sadly lacking. At best this article is a draft. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep favoring redirect I'm not convinced that this article has the potential to be improved within a reasonable timeframe. While I believe that it is certainly possible to establish notability for the subject, no editor has so far taken it upon themselves to improve the article. As it stands, the plot section dominates the article, the reception section is literally bare bones, and nothing is mentioned of the episode's development and production. --haha169 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"While I believe that it is certainly possible to establish notability for the subject" -- ~~thanks for voting to keep the article, then~~ this is an argument for keeping the article. Again, we don't delete articles about notable topics just because "no editor has so far taken it upon themselves to improve the article". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did not vote to keep it, do not twist other editor's words to suit your own agenda. That is unacceptable and will make your position here even less acceptable than it currently is. And given the evidence given by the other editor's here, we certainly do delete unimproved articles - it is actually a common practice. -- ^TW 15:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, fine. I struck out my comment and noted the editor's admission that the topic is notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an interest in this article and its subject, so why don't you start drafting something in your sandbox or the draft space instead of arguing at AfD? Even if it ends up deleted or redirected, if you can present a solid article at any time in the future, no one will object re-creating this article. But as it stands now, this article has not established notability, and potentially notable is not acceptable for an article to remain in the mainspace. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alex, Aussie and haha. If there is notability to the episode as Another Believer feels, then I say make this article a redirect, and start crafting the article in the draft space. An all plot article should not be sitting around waiting to be expanded, because as Aussie said, Experience has shown that the longer an article sits in an unnaceptable state, the less chance there is that it will be fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, redirecting makes more sense than deleting, since the redirect would still serve a purpose by directing readers to the season article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except you reverted me when I redirected the article, which prompted this AFD. -- ^TW 23:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
AlexTheWhovian: Right, because I think the subject of the article is notable. I'm not advocating for redirecting, I'm just agreeing that redirecting is more appropriate than actually deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Then create the article in the draft space and prove that it is notable. And I did redirect it, but you forced my hand to nominate it for deletion. If you believed it more appropriate, you would have gone for that option, created a valid article, then moved it back to the main space. -- ^TW 02:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. Better to start a draft where production info and a proper reception section can be worked on. - Brojam (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 95% of the article is
notable article make. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to reviewing/closing admin: Just for the record, and then I'll move on because I'm not going to fight hard for a television episode, editors are not using one of these reasons for deleting an article to support their comments. In fact, one even said the subject is notable. Just because an article has issues or tags does not mean it should be deleted. Somewhat ironically, the IP editor commenting throughout this discussion is the one making the most sense. Thanks, and happy editing, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of the reasons listed at
WP:DEL#REASON, I see contributors referencing reasons 8 and 14. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Not really. No one has flat out said the article's subject is not notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it could be notable. It just isn't in its current state. That's why you're being suggested to create the article in the draft space. -- ^TW 23:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Claiming that editors haven't used
WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is an argument to avoid. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Now the article is not just made of a plot summary. I just wrote a bigger reception section :) Lady Junky (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger reception article does not an article make. The extended plot summary still almost solely comprises the whole article, and any reception could be included in the season article. Look for other episode articles for example - there needs to be production information, real-world content, cast, release information, etc. -- ^TW 00:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You really do not like these pages, do you? ^^' We have so many episode articles with less than that, and no one seems to have a problem with it ^^ I really don't see what's the problem here. Lady Junky (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link these articles for me and I'll nominate them for you! What can I say except you're welcome? -- ^TW 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as there appears to be plenty of third-party, reliable sources discussing this episode in particular. I am not sure about the discussion of the current state of the article or whether or not users have improved it in a timely manner. The discussion should focus on whether or not this has received enough independent coverage to support notability, and I believe that it has (I can see quite a bit of coverage after looking through just Google News).
Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, I have changed and added stuff to the article since the beginning of this discussion ^^ Lady Junky (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--so improve it. obviously a notable episode. BTW I am all in favor of deleting almost every individual episode of every TV show, but this one made waves. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the draftspace is for. -- ^TW 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I second Alex. The onus is on the editor(s) who wish to keep the article to improve it to satisfy notability requirements. As of yet, the article still gives undue weight to the plot section and lacks any discussion of the production side of things (conception, development, casting, and release) that is necessary for any TV episode article. The reception section has been improved significantly, but it still lacks any sort of general synthesis (such as, "many critics lauded the episode for xxx") and is merely a list of quotations. Of course, an article doesn't need to be fully complete to avoid deletion, but I am not satisfied the current state is enough. I agree it needs to be improved, but the onus is on those of you who wish to keep it to do so. --haha169 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion should focus entirely on notability. I respectfully disagree with the following statement: "I agree it needs to be improved, but the onus is on those of you who wish to keep it to do so.". The idea of improving the article is a separate issue that I do not feel is directly relevant in an AfD context. When looking through the
Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

You make some excellent points and after reading your arguments I am inclined to switch my position on this issue. The article is in a much different state than when I originally cast my vote. I still personally believe this article needs to be moved to draftspace for very significant improvements, but I'll withdraw my delete vote because I think this article does at the very least meet
WP:GNG. --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your comment. I think that it is important to have an open discussion while still respecting and understanding one another's opinions. The article has improved since it was put up for the AfD. I agree that more improvements can and should be made in the future, and I would highly encourage whoever made this article to pause and do some work in a draft space when making a new article to adequately avoid notability concerns.
Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, or redirect to
Will & Grace (season 9). Zero secondary source material, WP:NOTPLOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The "Zero secondary source material" claim is inaccurate as there are secondary sources in the article.
Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/11_Years_Later&oldid=1077840266"