Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter's Got Woods

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 of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's Got Woods second nomination, episodes from Season 4b et. al.

Uncited, original research, breaks policy. See my comment to the first speedkeep. Also up for deletion under the same reasons:

-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • no brainer: keep this is precisely what is depicted in cartoon wars and cartoon wars II: of south park, just cause you dont like it doesnt mean you have to ruin it for everybody else
  • Comment I purposely put my comments above the others, because when I put them below the others (probably due to including the entire previous discussion), they didn't show up. With that said...
  • Comment The two of you have made this AfD debate INSANELY messy. If nothing else, the original debate should only be linked to, not recreated in the midst of this discussion. Now, with that out of the way...
  • Strong speedy keep Are you kidding me? Seriously, is this a damn joke? They're episode summaries of an incredibly popular, cult-favorite, multiple-Emmy-Award-winning television show! Why not delete every article on every episode of every television program ever? I absolutely think that some of these articles need to be cleaned up, but to deleted them would be completely, utterly, absolutely, 100% ludicrous. -- Kicking222 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so its fame allows us to ignore WP:CITE? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not its fame allows us to, WP:IGNORE certainly does. I'm trying to maintain the quality of WP by defending viable articles from someone who wants to eliminate them for no particular reason. I'm in no way intending to make this a personal attack, but what do you so severely hate about "Family Guy"? Why not nominate every single "Simpsons" episode, every single "Futurama" episode, List of I Love Lucy episodes, the section of The Office (UK TV series) dealing with episode summaries... need I go on? If we deleted these articles, we would literally have to delete thousands of articles. And there's no reason for that just because you have some vendetta. You make the point that you would never find episode guides in an Encyclopedia Britannica, but you know what? That's why the first thing listed in WP:NOT is that WP is not paper. -- Kicking222 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't hate Family Guy. I just thought these articles were uncited and original research. I actually like Family guy. I hadn't checked other TV show summaries, so I couldn't know if they were bad or not yet. 'WITHDRAWN'. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Someone seems to have a grudge against Family Guy ;-) Seriously, they are episode pages like those of any other series. There is no original research in them. As for "cite", the episode which is summerised is a valid source. The person who made these accusations should back them up, as they seem pretty random and unfounded to me. And while he's at it, he should justify why he's going after Family Guy episodes only. Is it more researched or sourced to describe an episode of another series? Or is he planning to mass-delete all episode pages of all series? Until we get some kind of explaination on why these episodes in particular should be deleted, I'm strongly for keeping them. -- Ritchy 21:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, judging from the archived discussion below, it seems this debate has already taken place, and the overwhelming opinion is for "keep". Is there a reason why the debate is being reopened? -- Ritchy 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "debate" was when the page was porrly written, not when it was uncited. It is original research; the authors are getting their info from their knowledge of the episode. If they got the info from a summary then wheres the citation? And I do intend on proding all uncited summaries. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So by your judgement, any movie/book/tv show page that has a summary of the work is "uncited original research"? That's nonesense. It is cited, and the source is the movie/book/tv show being summarised. And if that's "original research", then every page where something's expressed in the writer's words instead of being copy-pasted from a book or encyclopedia - which is to say, every single page in wikipedia - is guilty of original research. And since we cannot copy-paste articles from encyclopedias (you know, with those pesky copyright laws and all), then we might as well shut down wikipedia right now and save you the trouble of listing every last page. -- Ritchy 22:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is a ternary source, so it shoud get information from secondary sources. The user's interpretation of the show via watching it once is original research since they are only using the subject as a source. It's the reason interviews can't be added directly to Wikipedia. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an interpretation, it is a summary. It is a factual description of what happens in the episode. "Peter gets trapped on a desert island. He comes back after several months, and finds Brian has married Lois. He wins Lois over again." There is no original research in there. If the text were to read, say, "In a very unoriginal plot twist, Peter gets trapped on a desert island. But the Robinson story was better. Lois married Brian -- ewww gross, bestiality is wrong! But Peter wins Lois over again, yay Peter! He's so great, I love him so much!" then that would be a fan interpretation of the show, and you'd have a case. But there is nothing in wikipedia policy against putting factual information in - in fact, that's what wikipedia in for.
And another thing, did you actually read the No Original Research page? I'd like you to find me a part of it that can says, or even that can be loosely interpreted as saying, that a factual NPOV movie/book/tv show summary constitutes original research. That's kinda important for your case, since you're aiming to delete most of wikipedia based on that argument. -- Ritchy 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ccool2ax says:

Well, Wikipedia is a ternary source, so it shoud get information from secondary sources. The user's [summary] of the show via watching it once is original research since they are only using the subject as a source.

Wikipedia policy says:

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I think that pretty much settles the debate. -- Ritchy 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"their personal analysis or interpretation of published material" under purpose makes sense... how about "or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data" under "defininton"? I've already stated my opinion, now let's gather others.-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, except for the fact that no one is analysing or interpreting the episode, so your argument doesn't hold up. A factual, NPOV summary of an episode is neither an interpretation nor an analysis. I thought I already explained the distinction between the two in an earlier post above. -- Ritchy 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shoudn't they at least include a References section? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The episode is the reference! -- Ritchy 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues of Bob's Poetry Magazine can be used as reference. See March 2005, May 2005, August 2005 and January 2006. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Family Guy is a vital part of American mythology and its episodes are as worthy of Wikipedia articles as all the minor Homeric odes. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm all for compromise, but I'm not sure I follow your logic here in asserting that the articles are uncited. It seems to me that if an article is about a TV show, the show is the citation... the citation is implied and should be obvious. Same goes if I am writing an article for a film; the plot summary, cast, etc are technically "uncited" in that I have not made a citation, but the film is the citation. Now if I write something about the critical reception, that requires a citation. So, what exactly are you suggesting? Are you saying that one can't write an article about a television show unless a secondary source has summarized its plot, therefore providing one with a citation? Aguerriero (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the compromise would be to find secondary sources for TV summaries... every tv summary preferably. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this compromise. I disagree with the statement that the film, plot summary, cast etc are uncited as that may be how some film articles are but not how they should be as they can be sourced from IMDb and elsewhere. I was going to be putting uncited tags of some kind on these articles once they passed this AfD. MLA 08:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Surely there's an argument for deleting these articles, and those summarising particular episodes without particular cultural importance of any television programme, simply on the grounds of insignificance, or perhaps simply moving them to a different Wiki dedicated to such summaries, for the same reason that articles about undistinguished private persons are not included in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the information it is supposed to meet the requirements of relevance and significance as well as accuracy. -- DDCohen

STRONG STRONG STRONG KEEP If we can't keep this article, then we should go through and delete articles on individual episodes of TV shows....but since that would be extremely time consuming, and would result in a lot of good entries being deleted....there's just no sense.--Stdjsb25 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Episodes of the Family Guy. I know this battle is lost, but I still don't think we need episode summaries for every episode of popular TV shows. -- GWO
    • Doesn't Family Guy have a Wikia or something? Shouldn't they put their encyclpoedia-quality detailed articles on anything related to it there? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does, but the problem with it is that Family Guy is so symbiotically connected into American pop culture that Wikipedia is better able to put it all into context. In this way it is very different from another TV show that has its own Wiki, Star Trek. In some ways, the Star Trek universe is highly self-contained, it could exist in the absence of 20th Century American pop culture. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not paper CoolKatt number 99999 22:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this goes, then every other article on episodes of television series goes, too. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As with all other Family Guy episode summaries. Family Guy is closely linked to American popular culture, and the summaries at the Wikipedia offer and excellent reference for viewers who aren't too familliar with the said pop culture. Giving people more insight in different cultures is certainly something we want to achieve with the Wikipedia. --GSchjetne 20:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the point of deleting the article if there is original and uncited research? There's templates to use in place to help cleanup those unverified statements. Deleting does nothing in this situation since we're dealing with TV episodes. Douglasr007 07:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have found these guides to be incredibly useful, especially when attempting to decipher the many vague (I was born in '90) cultural references made on Family Guy. The guides are really just factually summaries; the WP policy isn't holy writ, and I believe that quite reasonably, we can bend the rules a bit. And yes, if you did delete this extensive amount of work, you would have to do so for just about every uncited TV show entry out there and minor article stub. If you must, put that uncited banner above the article. Don't destroy this much work. Aristotle1990 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly wish we could bend the rules here (seriously), but with editors treating even short essays as concrete, unbreakable rules (notability), I don't expect to see rule-bending here. It's either accept the rules or, when a deletionist is losing a battle, flat-out ignore them. At this point, I am not trying to delete all this work. I realize that they are great articles as far as quality of writing is. I just wish that the rules would stop being bent for TV shows and someone could introduce citations. If an article is uncited, it's original research, which is no-exceptions banned on Wikipedia. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It would be absurd to delete virtually every TV show and movie page on Wikipedia, but almost all were written by a viewer based on what they saw rather than by citing a third party summary. At worst, use the Primarysources tag. IMHO, that's overkill for a popular culture item. As someone noted above, critical reaction or other news connected to the episode should be cited. Alanhwiki 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but almost all were written by a viewer based on what they saw rather than by citing a third party summary"


Isn't that my point exactly? Wikipedia is not the place for original research. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is getting nonsensical in my opinion. Research on any topic is at some point original. Can a shared experience i.e watching a tv programme be considered research? Research suggests pursuing something to an end no-one has reached before. There is nothing on any of the Family Guy pages that anyone couldn't find out through seeing the relevent shows. It's a matter of knowledge rather than research. As a British person watching Family Guy I don't get all of the cultural references. It's nice to see them here laid out so I can understand them. Mallanox 21:27, 6 June 2006 (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.



This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Andy Janata 07:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's Got Woods

Submitted to AfD as a coutesy to User:Jondel, as I undeleted this article he deleted as an invalid speedy deletion. His reason was: "nonsense" JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:39, 17 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter%27s_Got_Woods&oldid=1146669307"