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 merge to Stranger Things (TV series). MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter One: The Vanishing of Will Byers

[edit]

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

These articles on episodes of Stranger Things are almost identical copy-and-pasted excuses to present overlong plot summaries and IMDB-style cast lists, right down to the same review quoted at the end and the semi-literate introductory gabble "Set in 1980s, it is highly-influenced by its culture and features uncanny resemblances from 1980s film industry." While Stranger Things is self-evidently a notable recent television series, the individual episodes are not notable enough to merit individual articles. — Scott • talk 13:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've been thinking this too, but didn't feel like nominating them myself. Looks like the reviews still haven't been updated to not be a simple copy-paste, unlike the creator claimed he would, and either way, those sites tend to review every episode, so the reviews don't make the episodes individually notable. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot-heavy fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eventually, the episode lists in the current Stranger Things article will need to be spun off to by-season articles, as is the case for a great many television shows. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having some by-episode ratings/reception information, as available, included once that happens. But even then, these articles are not the way to do it. Notably, the capsule plot summaries in the main article are appropriate; the play-by-play plots here, not so much so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I don't think the other episodes in the series are noteworthy enough for their own individual articles, this episode, being the pilot episode, appears to be notable enough to deserve its own page. It does require changes, however, such as cleaning up any original research in its contents and removing unnecessary image files. –Matthew - (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify Matthew, are you saying keep the article for the first episode and delete the rest? Personally, I think the pilot could be discussed adequately as a section within the show article. — Scott • talk 11:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon further review, it seems like a lot of the coverage for the pilot's article is based on critical reception for the series as a whole. I agree that the pilot could be discussed sufficiently in the show's article; I sort of saw the pilot as being more important than the other episodes, as it sets up the show. –Matthew - (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, and plenty of RS coverage is documented in the current article. Nothing the nominator or above delete !voters have listed above is a problem that cannot be overcome by regular editing, and so deletion is not appropriate. "Copy-paste" is inappropriately pejorative, as the text source is visually attributed and compliant with its license. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: The "RS coverage" is either about the series itself rather than the individual episodes (notability is not inherited), or from sources which simply review every episode regardless, therefore not establishing notability. And attribution is not the problem with "copy-paste", but rather having almost the same content verbatim in each article, apart from the plot summary. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, no. If a RS reviews an episode, that counts for the episode's notability, full stop. It really doesn't matter if they review *every* episode or focus on a few. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, that makes it more notable than episodes of other shows which are not reviewed at all, but it doesn't make it automatically notable. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jclemens: Pinging again because I typoed your nick. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The standard is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Your comment about sites that review every episode doesn't impact that standard in any way: they're not "lesser" RS because they do, nor do they count less than others. So if multiple RS'es (that would be 2) cover an episode, it's notable, and AfD needs to note it as kept. AFTER that, editorial discussion can decide whether to merge or not, but the proposal to change "Articles for Deletion" to "Articles for Discussion" is on WP:PEREN, I believe. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prune heavily and Merge, either into the parent article or a new season one episodes article. Way too much plot here. Artw (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (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.