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 House (season 3)#Episodes. czar 06:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cane and Able (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consider this a test case: the GNG notice has been on this page for years, so.. House might be a notable TV series, but individual episodes cannot surely be automatically notable. We have a huge amount of House trivia including lists of episodes, lists of characters, summaries of the plot of individual seasons and so on, surely we do not need to have additional detail about individual episodes. WP:TVEP states that "..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". Quite. WP:PLOT. We then delete all TV episode pages which do not have RS showing individual notability. JMWt (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge. Individual episode articles including this one are notable since significant coverage in reliable sources (including reviews) exist. But if the articles are not maintained, they should be merged. So merger discussions should happen at season/series talk pages, not AfD. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to House (Season 3). Extensive plot summary without context of greater influence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @JMWt, re: precedent, usually the metric for episode notability is whether a number of reliable reviews have been written in response—that would give us enough to write a plot summary from secondary sources, and to respond on what parts resonated with critics. If reviews aren't available and there are no other sources, don't be afraid to boldly merge. czar 06:43, 4 January 2017 (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.