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.
Comment to everyone about to add an opinion to this AFD: Please, (1), see WP:OTHER, and (2), keep in mind, that all of these episodes lack in-depth coverage. Adding who wrote and directed an episode is not in-depth coverage. Adding a review from Rotten Tomatoes is not in-depth coverage. Using an entire quote (a violation of copyright infringement), is not in-depth coverage. Adding who guest-starred, or who didn't appear in the episode, is not in-depth coverage. All of these articles fail WP:GNG, and because of that, they have been nominated to be deleted. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep all yet another attempt by deletionists with a confilict of intererst to shift free content to ad laden and privacy violating websites such as fandom. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@94.175.6.20: Are you going to give an actual reason for why these episode-articles deserve to stay? Most of them are WP:PLOTONLY and lack notability. And how is this a "conflict of interest"? The articles just lack in-depth coverage and should be removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm not against the deletion but I think all of these articles should be draftified, as editors put a lot of effort into writing plots and summarising reception. This will hopefully encourage editors to improve drafts until they meet the criteria.--TheVampire (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all They pass GNG because they get multiple reviews. I look at Triggerfinger (The Walking Dead) and Walk with Me (The Walking Dead) and both have two reliable sources reviewing them. Stop wasting people's time. DreamFocus 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dream Focus: The critical reception section of Triggerfinger is literally: Zack Handlen writing for The A.V. Club rated the episode B on an A to F scale. Eric Goldman at IGN gave the episode 8.5 out of 10. The rest of the article is literally just plot. This is the same for Walk with Me where production states who appeared in the episode, and reception has a short paragraph which reads: "The episode was generally well received. Zack Handlen, writing for The A.V. Club, gave the episode an A- on a scale from A to F. Eric Goldman at IGN gave the episode an 8.6 out of 10." How do these articles pass WP:GNG?
They pass GNG because the reviews exist and are by reliable sources and news sites. Read the reviews, they are in depth. What you write above, in my opinion, shows the article passes GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They obviously need to be improved to incorporate wording from these reviews beyond just their score, but the fact the reviews exist is the GNG sourcing that is required. --Masem (t) 01:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Coda (The Walking Dead) has coverage from The Daily Beast, Entertainment Weekly, and iO9, among others. These mass nominations are not a good idea, when there are significant differences between the articles. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn, and nominate individual episodes instead. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all I searched a random number of episodes and found multiple reviews and articles containing production information, so GNG is passed. GNG is determined by the existing sources, not by the current state of the article. Rhino131 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep - Outrageous overzealous nomination that does nothing to substantiate how all 50+ of these articles fail WP:GNG, while shamelessly ignoring policies and guidelines like WP:ATD, WP:HANDLE, WP:ARTN, and WP:NEXIST. Article content does not determine notability. If the problem is that the nominations are mostly plot summary, then rewrite them. Some of these WP:VAGUEWAVE / WP:RUBBISH / WP:WEDONTNEEDIT nominations are getting more and more brazen in not even pretending to cite a valid policy. Darkknight2149 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural keep - some of these might be worth putting up for AfD individually but absolutely nothing is going to be achieved here as there is no way that we can have a clear discussion about the individual merits and faults of each article in a forum like this Spiderone 19:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. I count 89 articles listed for deletion in one discussion. There is no chance of any kind of consensus coming out of such a huge nomination. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep: I'm not setting here and giving 70+ articles an in-depth look to see if they need to be deleted or kept. Articles being stubs shouldn't be an issue either. Editors should be encouraged to make good stubs that can grow and evolve over time to good articles. Out of the sample size I looked at (about 30 articles) I mainly found a large plot section with a reception section. Some (but not all) had production sections and good use of free media. While the 30 articles I looked at didn't have as many sources as The Simpsons and Game of Thrones articles that were also nominated for AFD today the sources indicate significant coverage, are reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And thus GNG is meet. It is even possible there are more sources to strengthen each article's significant coverage out there given the popularity of the show. From my understanding for WP:PLOTONLY to apply is if there is no indication of significant coverage and the entire article is a plot summary. Some of these articles barely escape the purview of WP:PLOTONLY while some do very well. Just tag them with a long plot summary tag. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 20:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural keep There are just too many pages to expect people to look through and evaluate individually. Especially due to the extremely vague statement of "Fails GNG". They may well all fail GNG but it doesn't seem like they were checked one by one and just nominated in bulk.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose "speedy" or "procedural" anything: "nominate individually" is not a sensible rationale to keep. Number of reviews per episode in a season (barring perhaps premiere, finale, award-winning or cult following episodes) are usually reasonably consistent, such that spotchecks of a couple of articles are likely to be representative. — Bilorv (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep Very poor rationale for the first, unusual nom structure for the rest. I have no interest in the show, but this is in no way a model AfD nomination and we aren't deleting an entire television series' episode articles just because. Nate•(chatter) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that there's a current discussion on WT:TV about what do with episodes with some review coverage, I think this needs to be speedy keep pending the result of that discussion. Additionally, these should be merged, not deleted. If push came to shove, ignoring all other factors (including the WT:TV discussion), I am certain that the bulk of these episodes have reviews out there that can be added (you can pick an episode to spot check but like taking "30 Days Without an Accident" a Google search brings up at least 4 sources for reviews (IGN, AVClub, EW, and Den of Geek). That said I again point to the WP:TV discussion that this reviews may be considered "routine" coverage by these sites, but that discussion needs more expansion and consideration before applying to these articles. --Masem (t) 01:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural keep 80-odd articles is just too many for a single afd. Hog FarmBacon 07:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural keep as it's near impossible for anyone to review these articles to determine if the AFD is valid or not. Multiply that by the impossibility of improving these articles if we were able to do the impossible and review all of them. It may be the case that some or even all (I'm doubtful) should be deleted but Wikipedia functions best when people are incremental. Jontesta (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.