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 delete. No original research is more important than notability. There is no evidence presented in this debate that these articles aren't original research, unverifiable with secondary sources. There is also a lack of consensus that these articles (as opposed to the main program page) are actually notable at all. Peter 12:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

3-2-1 Blast Off!

[edit]

Non notable per WP:EPISODE, I am not redirecting because someone did before me and his redirect was reverted. So I don't want to make the decision on my own, and start an edit war. Jackaranga 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have noticed administrators have contributed to several of these articles, so I prefer a wider opinion please, rather than removing their contributions myself. Jackaranga 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, none contain any references:

and also

Jackaranga 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know how to bundle a category for deletion into an afd like this, can someone please help. Jackaranga 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article establishes it's an episode of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman, therefore it's notable. Matthew 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They don't fit the notability criteria of WP:EPISODE or WP:N and for a show like this, there is no way to improve them. There is a process that you can use in the future instead of going with an AfD. And a side note to Matthew, please, please stop saying that. You know what notability is on this site, and if you really dispute it that much, you really should take it up at WP:N. TTN 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major children's show on a major network. Needs expansion, but no reason to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the show article, as per WP:EPISODE. Totally OR, no valid sources, probably won't be any. Corvus cornix 21:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe someone should change WP:EPISODE, because it is causing much confusion, especially the phrase that says :

It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available.

In the case of these articles there are no sources, let alone "secondary sources". I really don't understand, on one hand Andrew Lenahan, is saying not only should we keep these articles but also expand them. And on the other hand there was the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes thing, where everyone keeps reverting the redirects back and forth, I'm so confused. Can the administrators here please explain to me simply (and on WP:EPISODE) if possible whether or not it is OK to have each individual episode like this. If you look at Category:ER_episodes you will see there are only 3 episodes listed, even though ER is much better known that this TV series. I would be very grateful for a clear explanation, it is one of these things I don't understand about wikipedia, sometimes the rules seem perfectly clear but it turns out they meant something else, and only apply to certain articles. Sorry for this rant I'm just very confused now. Maybe if someone could write a list of series that are entitled to an article for each episode, I can avoid mistakenly nominating them for deletion.Jackaranga 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add one more:

Jackaranga 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These are a very important collection of articles. Besides, I don't see the American Dragon: Jake Long episodes articles being deleted and their plots are like what, 25 words? [1] And those articles don't have a reference! RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because someone hasn't gotten around to nominating episodes from other shows for deletion, has no bearing on the discussion of this set of episodes. Please explain what makes anything on Wikipedia "important". Corvus cornix 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matthew. - Presidentman 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not going to be possible to make many, or any, of these articles pass WP:V or WP:EPISODE and they are not notable by WP's definition. The episodes are outlined in the series article, which is where they belong.Adrian M. H. 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into tables, one table per season, linked to the main article, just like its done on other TV show articles. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, notability is not transitive. The show may very well be immensely notable. That doesn't mean the individual episodes are. I think we're falling into a severe case of accute ilikeitis. — Coren ^(talk) 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Show is notable, individual episodes are not. Whispe ring 11:48, 7 July 2007 (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.