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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday (Dilbert episode)[edit]

Holiday (Dilbert episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is comprised entirely of a plot summary, contains no specific references, and concerns an apparently non-notable episode of a comic strip. John254 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the nom no longer supports deletion. [1]. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an individual episode of a comic strip is not worth its own article (unless it's been covered in independent sources). Trebor 15:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Keep per below, but my word this needs cleaning up (as in I couldn't even tell it was a TV episode). Precedent does suggest individual episodes of a notable TV series are kept. Trebor 23:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you say about precedent may be a correct description of the outcomes of past AfD's, but that has nothing to do with how our policies and guidelines apply to the article under discussion here. Note that WP:AFDP emphasizes that "This page is not policy." Pan Dan 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm now sorry I got into the whole TV episodes discussion in the first place. Given my general ambivalence and confusion over the correct standards, I'll abstain. Trebor 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With TV episodes, from what I've seen both policy and precedent don't make a blanket judgement either way on TV episodes. Individual articles are OK, but only if the episodes are notable and the articles have sufficient content to justify their existence (or at least show the potential to get there with some editor effort). Really, TV episode articles should be judged on a case by case basis, not a notion that all should be kept or all deleted. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Jem 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is an episode of the Dilbert TV series, not the comic strip. I'm not sure that that makes a difference in this case, though. Maxamegalon2000 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Individual television episodes of a notable series are generally kept: (WP:EPISODE). Some other, more well-developed articles on this series are linked here - List of Dilbert animated series episodes. This one obviously is in a terrible state. SubSeven 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to be kept-- the article is written at a third grade literacy level. * Keep now that its been rewritten. Allon Fambrizzi 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

• Keep, per SubSeven. I cleaned up most of the grammar/syntax for what was there, but I'm reluctant to do much more, since I don't really know anything about the show. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable television series, plenty of potential for expansion. Wikipedia is NOT Paper! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a consensus to work on and fix pages like this, not delete them. - Peregrine Fisher 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Notable episodes get articles not episodes from notable series. Why would that logic fly for TV and not other parts of Wikipedia? Are you apart of a notable family? Does that mean cousin Franky gets an article, even though he's never done anything? Get out of the old state of mind, people. These articles suck ass, no one will ever fix them, and they only encourage people to use Wikipedia as their "OMG" fansite of useless trivia shit. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Since when do we determine deletion because articles "suck ass"? Trebor 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, if you want me to bullshit you and retype my message all Wikipedia-PC with neutral sounding words, ok, but don't tell me people don't think that. Certainly, that should never be the criteria alone, as Wikipedia is a work in progress and we are here to improve rather than delete. BUT, it's not likely that such articles even can improve. Yes, some minor improvements have been made, such as an infobox and the slight rewording of the painfully small content, but it's still nothing more than an episode that is not independently notable, nor information that needs to be split due to size. It's just mindless plot summary for the sake of plot summary (WP:NOT#IINFO #7). You seem to be missing the point of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and other similar pages. I don't like it because it's not a good article nor does it have the potential to be one and because it is needless plot summary, which our policies and guidelines strongly discourage. I actually liked the Dilbert show (wasn't great but I enjoyed it). -- Ned Scott 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to humour me and construct proper arguments, yes. But if you think this article should be deleted, why aren't you nominating all of these? To the best of my knowledge, general consensus is in favour of keeping episodes of a notable series. Trebor 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the same reason I haven't corrected every typo on Wikipedia, time. The idea that this is a general censuses is what gets under my skin. It's not a consensus. I'm not saying there's consensus against episode articles, but there never was a real consensus for them. It's so painfully easy to make articles that it makes it appear there is wide support for this. New users come on (and even old ones), see the articles and do the same for other shows. It's not a horrible thing, and everyone was acting in good faith, but for the vast majority no thought was really given to the creation. It was not the result of a discussion, rather it's the result of a misconception on a major scale. Precedent does not help us in this situation. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And nice double standard you have there, considering the "reasons" some of the keeps have made. That being said, I have no problem with further explaining myself. If you wish me to explain more on my reasons then I will. -- Ned Scott 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that, in contrast to what Ned said above about consensus, a consensus to include articles on episodes of notable TV shows was reached at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. It's also worth noting, given his objections to plot summaries, that the very first thing included in a list of items "to include about a television episode, where possible" is a "plot summary of the episode". Furthermore, he should know both of these things, since he's edited both the page in queastion and its talk page. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it should also be noted that that page also says to create individual episode articles "Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes". It certainly doesn't say that every notable show should have an individual article for each episode, in fact it recommends starting with series and season articles first and only splitting individual articles as necessary. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and ordinarily I would've suggested that this be merged back into List of Dilbert animated series episodes, except that in this case doing so would break that page's table format. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big supporter of WP:EPISODE, so yes, I know all about it. As Milo's note says, the topic of an episode is ok, but not necessarily an article dedicated to an episode. The episodes do not need individual articles, and only make themselves a target for cruft, trivia, and OR. Even forgetting anything about notability or any of those shades of gray, we still don't actually have anything more than a plot summary to write about that is unique to a specific episode. As for the table formatting, the solution to that is easy, just use the Template:episode list system. I would have no problems with a merge. -- Ned Scott 19:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ned Scott TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will 2nd Milo's and Ned's comments here. And I would like to introduce a term for this problem "Episode creep" :D. Yes the discussion says that. HOWEVER. It also says that you should not default to such behaviour, but where possible start with Shows -> List of episodes. Then once you establish notability for a seperate article (translated: more then a plot summary and the stuff which is usually tracked in imdb) you can create seperate articles for episodes. This does not say you have to create articles for ALL episodes of a show. The idea here is to improve before you create instead of simply duplicating effort by creating a ton of episode articles. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All this article needs is a longer summary, and that's it :) .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bad thing if all there is is plot summary. WP:NOT#IINFO #7 and WP:WAF do a good job at explaining why. -- Ned Scott 15:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (all episodes) into List of Dilbert animated series episodes and work from there, from a practical standpoint for centralized editing, and per User:Ned Scott. Doubtful most of these will grow beyond plot outlines anyway. Pomte 02:23, 4 February 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.