Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Months 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.

Four Months Later...

Four Months Later... (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)

Non-notable episode. Redirect declined. IGN source is 404; AV Club is only decent source. Article still had a trivia section until two seconds ago. Total fancruft, minimal out-of-universe notability. Zero sourcing found beyond what's already here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple reliable sources already quoted in the review section give it significant coverage. I just clicked on the IGN source and it loads up fine. https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/25/heroes-four-months-later-review How about you just combine all these into one AFD and stop redirecting other articles until we get more feedback? Dream Focus 06:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just going with the two you explicitly undid until we form a consensus as to whether or not a couple reviews are enough absent coverage of any other facet of the episode. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:NOTPLOT and there is not enough coverage of the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works to correct this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It has sections for Production details and Critical reception. I doubt "influence of works" would apply to 99% of episode or movie articles on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 13:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The production section is unsourced trivia; the critical reception is three sentences long, telling us only how many viewers the episode receives, and the score two reviewers gave the episode. The Slant Magazine source can help a little with this, but I don't think it can help enough to keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect As per BilledMammal. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – a quick Google search turns up several other reviews, such as this one from
  WP:LINKROT. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The Slant Magazine is a reasonable source, but Eugene Weekly is another plot summary; I still don't believe we have enough to keep, considering
    WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If there is a section discussing notable reviews of the episode, then the episode is no longer a "summary-only description" (i.e., it is more than just a plot summary), and therefore NOTPLOT is irrelevant. (I think part of the problem is that the current plot summary is too long, leading the plot section to dominate the article, but that's completely separate from the article's notability.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section discussing reviews of the episode consists of On the episode's original airdate, Heroes attracted 16.97 million viewers. Sean O'Neal of The A.V. Club gave the episode a B. Robert Canning of IGN scored the episode 7.8 out of 10. This doesn't bring the article beyond a summary-only description of the work. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there are more details in the sources that could be used to expand the section; within the article, each review could (and should) have a few sentences summarizing its main points of commentary. The brevity of the section is a writing issue, not a notability issue. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is met through reviews. NOT#PLOT cannot overrule NPOV, which requires us to cover topics as RS'es cover them: if all we have from multiple RS'es is plot, we cover that plot. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all we have from multiple reliable sources is plot, then per
    WP:NOT. BilledMammal (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • More appropriately, we bring in non-independent sourcing to cover production, etc. once independent RS'es push us over the notability threshold. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG per Dream Focus and additional sourcing identified by RunningTiger123. NOTPLOT doesn't apply here. The plot summary is a bit long and could use some editing, but the article also has smallish sections on "Production details" and "Critical reception". Clearly, it's not a GA-level article, but that's not the standard at AfD. The reviews added by Dream Focus and others referenced above by RunningTiger show that this can be further developed. In the end, there's enough here for a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per substantive reviews put forward during the discussion. The plot summary needs hacking down but that's true of a lot of television/film articles. I don't read "Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works" as requiring coverage of all those items, just at least one in addition to the plot summary. ETA The Eugene Weekly review is not just plot summary, there is opinion and analysis, eg the comparison with Joss Whedon's work. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RunningTiger123 and Jclemens. Keep all the other related ones too. Huggums537 (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes
  talk) 09:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]