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 redirect to List of Desperate Housewives episodes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Business (Desperate Housewives) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An obvious notability failure. The article lacks any sources (entire plot is pasted straight from the ABC website) and the only reason it still exists is because there are other Desperate Housewives episodes articles. This one has no significance whatsoever. -- A ^talk/_contribs 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't this a G12 (copyvio)? Graymornings_(talk) 22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't believe it is a good idea to single out one episode to present the issue. A more compact policy is needed for those, to decide when an episode is notable and when not. While I agree with you that not every episode deserves own article, you may want to check what happened when I did something similar: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary School Musical. Obvious no consensus on what is notable but I haven't yet decided to make a push to make a better policy. So I'd say it's better to withdraw this nomination and start a discussion elsewhere. Regarding the plot copied from ABC, this may be a copyvio issue and that's somethig else (should be removed for sure). --Tone 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is right -- nearly every episode of this series has its own article, and this one doesn't seem substantially different from the others. "Other stuff exists" may not be a reason for keeping an article, but the discussion on whether every DH episode needs its own article should most likely take place on the talk page of List of Desperate Housewives episodes, not on this deletion discussion. We do need to remove the copyvio, though. I'm not sure which parts of it are copied (intro, summary, notes) and where they're copied from, so I'm not going to take a crack at it myself, but someone with a bit more knowledge should remove this stuff. (Or does ABC ever allow the use of their material for press/informational purposes? Maybe we ought to check this out.) Graymornings_(talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that at least 10 or 20% of the separate episode articles are copyvios--but also that at least half of the one paragraph descriptions in summary lists are. I will say this for ABC, that at least the grammar is correct, though I think the prose pretty monotonous. But there's something else--when somebody writes either the real article on the episode, or the summary, they can now refer to the ABC article for the motivations of the characters. That's usually a weak point, because that part of the plot does need some secondary sourcing. The producer's own description would seem reliable for that.DGG (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Desperate Housewives episodes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect and only bring these things to AfD if the redirect is repeatedly reverted, please. Be WP:BOLD! :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2009 (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.