Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cautionary Tales (Heroes)

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.

Cautionary Tales (Heroes)

Cautionary Tales (Heroes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Notability has been challenged (not by me). This article consists of a plot recap w/ a couple of one sentence reviews hastily added as a token gesture toward passing GNG. The very thinness of coverage IMO argues against notability. What about this particular episode makes it worthy of an article? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Well at least this one has four sources, two of which are from the TV network, the other two are slapped on the end to pass GNG. Also open to redirecting to the list of episodes like it should have been all along. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing in this meets
  WP:RS for purposes of notability, being just from entertainment sections of a couple of websites (one is an 'online newspaper' but still doesn't pass muster) and 2 from the network. Even if these did suggest notaility, it would be notability of the series. Individual episodes of a series can't be notable unless there is something specific in them that makes them notable beyond the series itself - something that gets people talking - otherwise it is just fan cruft. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Procedural keep. No point nominating a single episode for deletion when every episode has an article. Either nominate them all or none of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I would nominate them all for deletion right now- except how? Individual nominations in one go are no better than doing them one at a time - indeed may be best avoided as they can trigger a referral to ANI. If I nominate one and name the whole series, notices are not placed on each page in the series. I cannot find an essay on how to nominate multiple articles at once. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm convinced that 90% of the individual episode articles on WP could be deleted w/ nothing of value being lost. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have researched the issue today and found that a forthcoming RFC will look at deletion at scale, but no deletion at scale currently exists. I therefore believe this "procedural keep" should be struck. There is no such procedure and so we are forced to do these one at a time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course there is. See

  WP:MULTIAFD. There are many mass nominations at AfD, so you are certainly not "forced to do these one at a time". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Episode has 2 reviews. What is the point of ignoring reviews from RS, despite what other editors claim that they are not RS. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Any TV show gets reviews but where is the evidence that the episode is notable? see

  WP:NEPISODE Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It really depends on what TV show we're talking about. There's some that gets several reviews for every single episode, and with others, you would be hard-pressed to find even one or two reviews for most episodes. MoonJet (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Two reviews is notable. NEPISODE doesn't trump the GNG, and in fact actually supports this: "Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode." Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The GNG is that coverage must be significant and independent. TV shows get reviews on webzines is certainly not significant and the NBC links are not independent.

  WP:NEPISODE is written specifically to address what is meant by the GNG on that score. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That policy is known as

  WP:GNG. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:GNG, which IS policy. Also, the reviews cited are not from "webzines", they are acceptable reliable sources. Try not to use essays as part of deletion discussions as they have no bearing and are just the opinion of the essay writer. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  For the record, GNG is not a policy, but rather a guideline, leaving a bit more room for flexibility (for example, an article can still pass, even if it doesn't follow the exact letter of the guideline, and even if an article does pass it, doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be redirected or deleted). That being said, I'm in agreement with Jclemens in keeping the article for the two in-depth reviews. So, yeah, NEPISODE is merely advice, rather than an actual guideline like GNG is. MoonJet (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2022 (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.