Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains (Heroes)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Villains (Heroes)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Villains (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)

This article has had issues since 2014 and they have not been addressed. There are two references that give a rating of the episode, and they are slapped on the end of the article. It looks like they did this to avoid speedy deletion. Should be deleted and redirected to the season article. Previous editors have tried to address this and redirect to the season article but as of now there is not consensus. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is sadly what happens when a television show burns out and leaves barely a cultural memory; we get to sweep up the remainders of it down the line as if it was stuck in a storage facility and checked in upon here and there to see if it can still be used, only to be sold off on Storage Wars when we forget to pay the bill. This? It's a long-forgotten sweeps stunt that didn't change anything about the show's narrative to speak of. No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 02:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 2 reviews linked in the article. That is enough for WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 15:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donaldd23 We tried to redirect this article to the list of episodes but you reverted it back (twice) with the comment "Has 2 reviews" and in a previous revert you said there needed to be a discussion. So here we are. Does this article having two published reviews technically pass WP:GNG? Yes. Do the references for this article support the article, improve the article, or support the article? No. Policies and guidelines (including WP:GNG) are principles not laws. This article is in essence a wall of text with two references slapped at the end to ensure the most minimal passing of WP:GNG. The references themselves talk about the episode but all they support in the article is a pair of short one sentence statements about the rating they gave the episode. I don't see anyone coming in to fix the problems that have been tagged for the last seven years or so. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two sources do not show sustaining impact, so I disagree with GNG being satisfied with two contemporary recaps posted at the time the episode aired, not overviews written in the future with the show's declining impact known since then. There hasn't been any since the time it aired, and I've grown tired of episode articles which are 'two reviews GNG'-cleared based on hastily-written recaps the night of or next day (a major issue with adult animation and comic-like franchise episodes in retrospect that's aged us badly). A paragraph suffices for most episodes of television, and this entire article is a poor in-universe plot dump which wouldn't even be acceptable on a Fandom site. The two recaps even grade it as a near-average episode. Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reviews literally spell out that it was an average episode of television. There are no other sources besides that. This is an episode which has never made any kind of 'best episodes ever' TV list, nor again did it shift the narrative of the show appreciably enough to deserve an article. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a major divide between editors saying "Keep", GNG is met and those editors advocating "Delete". Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability requires verifiable evidence and there isn't enough real-world impact to write a WP:NOT WP:PLOT version of this article. Jontesta (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the barest GNG pass, but the reviews cited are from the A.V. Club and IGN, reliable sources which are far more significant than "random blogs". The "plot" section is far too extensive and needs to be trimmed down, of course, but that is not a matter for AfD. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect to a season or episode list. I'm not convinced that two fairly routine reviews are sufficient to meet SIGCOV for any topic. I wouldn't accept it for a book or a movie, for example; I don't see why it's sufficient for a single episode. We also need to consider WP:NOPAGE when dealing with TV episodes - if the best that can be said about an episode even at the time of release is "it aired," does it really need its own page? Can it not be suitably covered in context in the season page? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As with The Eclipse, there's two in-depth reviews cited for the episode, and thus, GNG is met. But like that article, the reception section needs to be expanded upon with the given sources and the plot section trimmed down, as it doesn't make the article look good in deletion discussions like this. MoonJet (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IMHO I'm neutral, and both options are viable, I've added a bit of details to the reviews (sadly, they are mainly plot recaps, but are just significant enough). With just two reviews, this is a very borderline AfD. Notability is debatable, IMHO, based on interpretations. On one hand, IGN and A.V. Club are not random blogs, Just Another Cringy Username, they are all considered RS on WP:VG/RS. On the other hand, the majority of the article is the plot, which is pointless fancraft, I'd like to have it almost entirely trimmed, but that results in a WP:PERMASTUB, which results in no need for an article if there's no potential to be anymore than a stub... Also, my POV can't understand why an episode with just 2 RS need to have a separate article instead of being just discussed in the main article for Heroes, despite this one being borderline notable. VickKiang (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't talking about this specific case, but in a more general sense. I've noticed a POV here of "It meets GNG, therefore it's notable," w/ little consideration of things like SIGCOV, NOPAGE, and subject-specific notability. I'm arguing that if GNG is all it takes, you could find two random mentions in some obscure corner of the internet and technically get it to pass GNG, but shouldn't we try and do better than that?
    May I add, I'm enjoying this discussion! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You enjoy trying to find pretexts to destroy others' volunteer work? I would be ashamed to admit such a thing in public... but I'm a decent human being who appreciates the value of contributions here. Are you? Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, @Jclemens your attitude is not cool. It's a Wikipedia AfD discussion about a TV episode that aired 14 years ago. There's a time and place to get upset about something, this is not it. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Don't presume to tell me when I am and am not upset, and 2) don't presume to judge the importance of particular article to others on the basis of your own opinions and attitudes. Reacting to an inappropriate statement implying, for lack of a better essay, an WP:MMORPG attitude, is appropriate, if not necessary for appropriate health of the community. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens I can tell you're at the very least displeased, I'm not trying to invalidate your feelings here. We can handle this professionally. None of us are upset about what you said or your opinion or views on people's work here. What concerns me is your comments towards Just Another Cringy Username and VickKiang, it's unprofessional and WP:NOBITING. You're talking about the health of the community and here we have two editors who have been here less than a year getting chewed out over an article about a TV episode that aired 14 years ago. Honestly, and I mean it, if you are this concerned about this issue then lets go and try to change the policy about TV episodes so it can be settled once and for all, we might disagree about what should be done with these articles but we can still turn this whole thing into something productive. If you want to go in this direction just hit me up and I'll help draft something with you with the pros and cons for each and we can take it to RfC. I am completely serious and willing to work with you to change this policy if you think it'll make a difference. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! I have to admit that Jclemens is a far better more experienced editor than most of us, but IMHO I at least have a decent (not great but not bad) knowledge of WP:GNG and most WP:SNGs. Previously I did vote weak keep in AfDs with just two RS, but after seeing a lot of them closing in no consensus, I'm iffy here, though IMO for games, films, or literature related articles I'm more certain in my AfD votes. Of course, I'm not sure where's the best venue to open a RfC or discuss, at WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, or start an essay then discuss on its talk page? Thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I understand your point and disagree with Just's points, but saying that Just Another Cringy Username enjoy[s] trying to find pretexts to destroy others' volunteer work is a bit of a stretch, and I'm a decent human being who appreciates the value of contributions here. Are you? seems exaggerated and irrelevant to this discussion. Whether article meets GNG or not is open to intepretation, but IMHO anyone can agree that most of the article is so poor that it needs to be significantly trimmed if it's kept. VickKiang (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to trimming or any other ATD, but the notability threshold is pretty clear--two reviews--and met by the subject. Those who try to argue anyway that an article should be deleted or redirected, rather than fixing it themselves, and openly admit their glee at the prospect are demonstrating that personal gratification, rather than the improvement of Wikipedia, is their motivation. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: You keep asserting based on your inclusionist POV that notability is clear, and criticising other editors for disagreeing. This isn't the case as notability is borderline, and it doesn't make sense to comment this negatively on others simply if you disagree. VickKiang (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I keep stating that it is clear because it is clear. Calling me names doesn't change that. Trying to call reviews "trivial" and move the goalposts isn't something new: I've seen it for a decade and a half. The integrity of notability guidelines is enough reason to dispute the ridiculous expectations of some who are trying to get around their plain, long-standing, widely-understood meaning. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Whatever your POV and my POV, IMO we could respectfully disagree, 2 refs is the barest of squeaking in notability, not to mention WP:NOPAGE and potentially the need for WP:TNT, if you just ignore these and accuse all delete voters are ridiculous, fine. VickKiang (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question To those saying delete: why exactly is redirecting not an acceptable option? Redirecting is common practice when it comes to non-notable episodes of notable shows (see Category:Redirects from episodes and its subcategories), people looking for the episode will still be navigated to a relevant page, editors wishing to expand the article upon gathering enough decent sources have at least a skeleton they can work with in the edit history, there's nothing in the article that warrants speedy deletion (as such copyright problems or harassment), and anyone could create the redirect immediately after deletion. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason at all. I'm always open to redirect as an AtD.
    If you look upthread, this article was redirected twice and reverted both times by an editor who insisted on an AfD discussion, so as @Dr vulpes said, "here we are." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vote above, but I'm too open to a redirect. VickKiang (talk) 04:06, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Villains_(Heroes)&oldid=1107853408"