Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls) (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. The issue of whether or not this should be a redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Twist (Gilmore Girls)

AfDs for this article:
French Twist (Gilmore Girls) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a single episode of the show

the general notability guidelines. This article has no sources to establish general notability, nor is it likely to ever have such sources (it is rare for a TV show to do so). Until and unless this can be shown to meet GNG, it should be redirected to List of Gilmore Girls episodes. I'll have restored the non-redirected version for the duration of this discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy keep under
    WP:SK ground 1. It's not necessary to invoke the AfD process if you want to redirect an article.—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy keep/redirect/close, doesn't need a debate, coulda been redirected without one. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In fact, I did; this was a redirect for several years, before another editor yesterday decided to revert to the older article. After the user reverted my turning this back into a redirect, and since it technically did survive an AfD once before, I thought it nicer to go ahead with a formal AfD. In other words, I am nominating the page for deletion under the grounds that it doesn't meet
    WP:GNG; as a result of the (I believe inevitable) deletion, a redirect would be left. I want it to be clear to other editors that whether or not this is a standalone article is a matter of compliance with the guidelines, not just a regular content dispute that would be resolved on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Here's how I see it. Yes, the article needs a lot of work, as it reads now it is little more than a plot summary. However, I don't see quite why you talk like a completed article has no place on Wikipedia. The last time this, and several other GG pages were brought up for deletion, the consensus was "keep" but rework, and I think that still stands. There are numerous television episodes that have their own page here on Wikipedia. The television show Firefly, while only running for a limited number of episodes, has a separate page for each episode. There are television episode pages for a number of television shows that are now on the air, Desperate Housewives, Glee, How I Met Your Mother, and we're not just talking one or two particularly special episodes, we're talking every single episode. Now take Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Angel. Both on the WB at the same time as Gilmore Girls, and in Buffy's case, had 7 seasons like Gilmore Girls. There is an article for every single one of their episodes. How are their episodes any more "notable"? I propose that the article is kept and that instead of wasting time arguing about its notability, we try to think of ways to improve it. Xylogirl07 (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should read
WP:GNG. Also, you are correct that this is a second nomination. The prior nomination was over 3 years ago (and, over time, both explicit policy and implied community practices have changed). Furthermore, there is no restriction on nominating an article for deletion a second, third, or even tenth time (as long as the nominations are in good faith and continue to be policy based). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Again,
404 Error (edit: I'm too stupid to c&p URLs). – sgeureka t•c 15:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
If you like to improve the article (a noble cause) but don't know what's expected of wikipedia episode articles, there are some episode articles at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Arts#Theatre, film and drama. – sgeureka t•c 15:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My argument above was not that 'just because these other articles exist, this one should too', it was to find some sort of answer to the WHY of it all. Why do all of these articles go through the radar for so many years and this one is targeted? Is there a WAY to bring this one up to the standard? By comparing this episode to ones like it, I was trying to find an answer to that problem. Please don't just dismiss me with Wikipedia policies. Xylogirl07 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"As for the notability of this episode, it is an episode in which the main character of a 7 season long television show gets married. I think that has some weight in its notability." No one has yet to address that though.Xylogirl07 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an "in-universe" reason why the show is "notable." This is not the same thing as "notable by Wikipedia's definition." That is, the key question is not, "Did the events that occurred in this episode have an important effect on the plot line of the show?" The question that must be answered affirmatively for this article to be kept is, "Did this episode receive coverage in multiple, independent sources"? I took a look at the refs you just added, and I don't believe that they are enough. Reference three is the best, but it doesn't say what you claim it says--it's just a reviewer's comments on the show (that is, it doesn't mention fan reaction at all). Still, it's helpful, as not every single episode of every show gets a review, but we need more. The Graham interview barely mentions this episode, so I don't think that counts as significant coverage. The Crushable interview does not appear to meet the
reliable source guidelines. If the article isn't redirected, then we'll probably to remove it; for now I just added a tag. So, in summary, the second source does help establish notability of this episode, and the third source helps a tiny bit. We need more to justify keeping this as a stand-alone article. By the way, please don't feel bad about any of this--the nature of the way Wikipedia defines notability is such that it is very unlikely that most episodes will have their own article. Yes, as you point out, many shows do, even though they shouldn't; but the solution is to eventually go through and weed those out, not to add more. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Question about the crushable interview: The interview cites that it was done by a journalist that writes for TV Guide. He himself was cited as the author of the Lauren Graham interview. Is there maybe a better copy of the interview out there? The original source from a reliable website? I feel that the interview itself might say something for its notability, but I do agree that the website it comes from is pretty sketchy. Xylogirl07 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and
this argument at me. I've seen it.) I do appreciate that you are taking the time to listen to me instead of just throwing wikipedia policies at me. If it gets kept, great. Maybe there is a way to improve. If it gets deleted/redirected, then no worries. Xylogirl07 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
One more thought! I have a bunch of books on GG in referance to gender studies and critical essays (i.e. Coffee at Luke's) I'm not sure if any of it would be relevant to this episode in particular (I'll have to look it up when I go home) but if the episode was mentioned, would that be appropreate to cite? Xylogirl07 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those would absolutely work. If this episode is discussed in detail (it doesn't have to be the main topic of the article, but it has to be more than just a passing reference), and those essays are
reliable sources (i.e., published in an academic journal/book, not on a blog or fanzine), then those will likely establish this episode as notable. As Inbluejeans says below, one or two more sources would be just enough to push this over into a keep, and if those sources are added, I will definitely change my !vote to keep. Alternatively, if you aren't able to find the sources now, but find them later after deletion, you can always ask the deleting admin to put a copy into your userspace, where you can keep working on it until such time as you can get it to reach the guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2011 (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/French_Twist_(Gilmore_Girls)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1078463446"