Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (Desperate Housewives)

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 no consensus. If someone feels as though it would be most appropriate to merge these articles as proposed, please take up that argument on the talk page of the articles (preferably one talk page, with notes on the related pages). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Desperate Housewives)

I am nominating the entire Desperate Housewives Season 1. It Breaks WP:Episode which states individual episodes are usually not WP:Notable, and they don't qualify in any of these cases. All relevant information is already included in Desperate Housewives, List of Desperate Housewives episodes and Desperate Housewives (season 1) where it belongs. If this passes the other episodes of the remaining seasons will be nominated also. KelleyCook (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following season 1 episodes are similarly nominated:

Delete all for failing notability guidelines. None of these are sourced, nor are they likely to ever be. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Desperate Housewives (season 1) -- only television episodes that have been extensively written about and analyzed should be retained as individual articles. Powers ^T 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable (per guidelines) and unsourced. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all. Only episodes that have been reported on by third-party sources should have their own article. This article (main nominee) contains quotes (WikiQuote) and Trivia (should be included in text) which are generally believed to not be suitable. The rest is not referenced, not even the guest appearances. If the info isn't referenced when it is in list form, that list should go too. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. And merge properly. The guidelines for episodes give an indication of how much plot is necessary for comprehension, and the amount in the present merged lists is totally inadequate. It's the amount for the teaser in a TV guide, not an encyclopedia, which should actually provide information about the episode. DGG (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per nom. Still useful as somewhat likely search terms or dab links. If someone feels it's easier to merge than to expand without merging, he is free to use the page histories. Some episode articles (at least the pilot) may theoretically be able to become a GA, so keeping the page histories around wouldn't be bad either. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect, or possibly keep. These episode titles are at least plausible search terms, which means redirection is an acceptable alternative to deletion, and as such, per policy, deletion is unwarranted. The nominator says this set of articles "Breaks WP:Episode" and yet the nominator has broken WP:Episode by ignoring that guideline's very advice to "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research". Why? The fact that these episodes are all available on DVD, some with commentary, shows that information in these articles is not "completely unverifiable", and there are even published books covering these episodes, which indicates that there may be enough reliable source material even for individual articles to satisfy notability. DHowell (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm pretty certain there is not a book available about the individual episode. And "the fact that these episodes are all available on DVD, some with commentary, shows that information in these articles is not 'completely unverifiable'" could be applied to 95+% of the television series ever produced, so is specious arguement. Bottom line: the series is notable, a season synopsis is notable, but each episode so far has not been notable. -- KelleyCook (talk)

Our notability guideline does not require there to be an entire book about a specific topic for it to have an article, only that there be significant coverage. "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Also, your claim that "95+%" of TV series have DVDs with commentary available is easily disproved by heading over to TVShowsOnDVD.com. Browsing the first 100 TV shows listed in the A's, I found that only 15 are available on DVD—sorry, but 15% is far, far less than that "95+%" figure you pulled out of thin air. And this particular show is not just one among the many TV shows even available on DVD—this is one of the most popular shows of the decade, consistently among the top 10 most watched shows in America since it began. Each episode has been watched by more people than the entire population of Switzerland. By the way, you still haven't explained why you are ignoring WP:Episode's guidance to avoid listing articles like these for AfD. DHowell (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all on my authority. Arrogant Dutchbag 20:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrogant Dutchbag (talk • contribs)

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.