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 except signature updates.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. There was no need for all this relisting; it is plain that there is no settled opinion on what to do with the article. Note also that the injunction is now lifted with the closure of the case in question. -Splash - tk 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shortland Street episodes[edit]

The article is about episodes of a soap opera that is slow moving and airs daily. The page is already very out of date and I don't think it's fesable or nessecery to have an article about every single episode of a daily sopera opera. Perhaps an article for a few notable episodes yes, but not every single episode that has aired. As far as I know, no other soaps do that. IvanKnight69 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, per above notice. sho y 01:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, with the injunction in place, might I suggest an alternative option, which would be to consider the purpose of the page, and how to best do it. I certainly agree that a list of all episodes would be problematic (I've said so about Soaps before), but it would not be unfitting to have some sort of article on the episodes of the shows, such as has been done for other series. I recommend looking for a better way to do things instead of deletion. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I first encountered this page about three months ago and asked at Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes/Archive_4#List_of_episodes_of_daily_soaps what should happen with it, and got the reply that a story arc summary or year arc summary would work better. I think this is the best solution. I also think an episode list like this is unverifiable, so I am more in favor of deletion/redirection instead of keeping (consider this a vague recommendation). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (once the injunction is lifted). This list is incomplete (there are around 4,000 episodes from 1992-2006 which aren't listed and probably never will be, and the list hasn't been updated since September 2007). Where they exist, the descriptions in this article are brief to the point of uselessness: "Craig sees the bully within. Hunter makes a sacrifice. Claire takes a tumble." (episode 3769) is a fortune cookie, not an episode summary. Finally, the events of the soap are already covered much more thoroughly in Storylines of Shortland Street and subarticles, so we aren't even losing anything by deleting this. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize once the injunction is lifted, in the manner suggested by Sgeureka. Articles on the seasons would be much more useful. DGG (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They already exist. See Storylines of Shortland Street, as I mentioned above. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Zetawoof. The info here is a poor poor cousin to what already exists. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of reasons already listed above.Adabow (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refit per User:sgeureka above. An episode listing like this is clearly not appropriate for a slow-moving soap opera such as this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - despite unquestionable sincerity and good faith of nomination, knowingly nominating in the face of an arbcom injunction shows jawdroppingly defective judgement, such as to question value of any nomination from this nominator - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think it's possible that not every single person on Wikipedia is aware of the arbcom case? Metros (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or that not everyone considers the injunction as a request to ignore problematic articles. The injunction only says that the articles should not be deleted, not that they should not be discussed - and, given that the case is one vote away from closing, it hopefully won't be long until it's no longer a concern at all. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is untrue and unfair. The injunction only prevents deletion, not discussion. So far, discussion is all that has occured, and there is an informal consensus that we can discuss these things on AfD so long as they're not deleted in accordance with the injunction. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      - Slow down - we're in agreement here. :) My point is exactly that the injunction only prevents the discussion from being closed - until it's lifted (which shouldn't be long), we can discuss it all we want. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply, as noted on your talk page, my comment was directed to User:David Gerard, not to you =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Any TV series which deserves an article deserves a list of episodes. It needs expansion to include all episodes (if possible), and should probably be broken up per season (or some other division). Whether further information can be found (or is available) about the earlier episodes shouldn't determine whether we keep or delete this. --Oldak Quill 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) PS. There are independent sources available which list episodes per season (e.g. IMDb, TV.com, tvnz.co.nz). --Oldak Quill 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The missing episodes only show how fragile information can be. New Zealand is a small country, and it's not up to us foreigners to tell New Zealanders what's notable for them. Eclecticology (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Oldak. Cleanup isn't what AfD is for, and deletion isn't for poor content (BLP excepted, but that's not here). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, pending finalisation of relevant Arbcom injunction--VS ^talk 10:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I object to the continual re-listing, closing discussions as no-consensus is not a problem. Catchpole (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (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.