Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Space Ghost: Coast to Coast episodes

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 List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes. WP:FICT is still proposed, and throwing out all the partisan bunk that shouldn't be on AfD (do not turn deletion discussions into an extension of FICT battleground), articles do not meet GNG and no evidence was given to show that they do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Space Ghost: Coast to Coast episodes

Six stubs about individual episodes of Space Ghost: Coast to Coast, all of which fail to meet even one criterion spelled out at WP:FICT for the creation of articles about individual television series episodes. Suggest either delete or redirect all to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:FICT is only a controversial proposal, which will very soon, based on the RfC on the talk page, be a failed historical proposal. Ikip (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there hasn't yet been a single policy-oriented reason for WP:FICT to be failing — the argument boils down to "but then I can't add my own favourite trivia!", not to any genuinely substantive reason why it shouldn't be followed. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have not been paying close attention top the discussion. WP:FICT is diametrically opposed to FIVE PILLARS, and is NOT a guideline. Worse, it has been going through continual modifications and is not the same today as it was last week or what it will appear in another week. Acting as if it is a guideline discredits all who have involved themselves in the ongoing discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been asserted that WP:FICT violates the five pillars. Nobody has demonstrated how it does so. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the list of episodes. Then if anyone wants to merge what little content there is, they're welcome to. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are entire Articles for entire episodes of Aqua Teen Hunger Force & Xavier Renegade Angel. Space Ghost: Coast To Coast is the most memorable Adult Swim Series, to the point that it was mentioned in the Family Guy episode The Father, The Son, and the Holy Fonz. It is the reason Adult Swim, an entire Channel according to Nielsen ratings. It helped to elect Keith Crofford & Mike Lazzo as presidents of said Channel. It directly inspired Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law, Twelve Ounce Mouse, & The Brak Show, and it indirectly inspired every other show on Adult Swim. Also, the List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes has absolutely no information whatsoever about what happens in each Episode, unlike every other Episode Guide on Wikipedia. It was the second adult animation Series ever recorded. It currently has the most Episodes of any Adult Swim Original Series. If anything, at lest keep the important Episodes: Baffler Meal, which inspired Aqua Teen Hunger Force; Pilot, which inspired Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law; & Kentucky Nightmare, which inspired Twelve Ounce Mouse. The rest can be fused with the List of Episodes, but only if a section is added to that for the actual content of each Episode. TBone777 (talk)0:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because some other show's standalone episode articles haven't gotten deleted yet doesn't mean this one's are entitled to stick around. Secondly, it's not enough to simply assert notability here — the article itself has to demonstrate notability through the use of reliable sources that verify the notability of the topic. And thirdly, read WP:FICT: it has to be shown that the episode is independently notable in some way outside the show's own internal universe. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuff exists is an essay, written by less than 10 editors, as the tag on the page states: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." in this case, otherstuffexists is a minority viewpoint, which everyone can dismiss. Bearcat, I would appreciate it if you stop adding WP:FICT in your alphabet acronym soup, as I wrote elsewhere, FICT is a controversial proposal, that has failed twice before to gain acceptance, which based on the current RfC will become a rejected and failed policy. Ikip (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd appreciate it if you stop dismissing the legitimate policy concerns of dedicated editors as some sort of meaningless "alphabet acronym soup". Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His points are well considered and it is a disservice to Wikipedia to yourself direct editors to essays as if they were law. They are not, and there is good reason why they are ONLY essays. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are well-considered statements written by people with substantial experience in dealing with these very issues, and it is a disservice to Wikipedia to deem them irrelevant or unacceptable solely on the basis that they're essays. The fact that it's "only" an essay is not a valid reason to simply dismiss it as inapplicable without engaging the real crux of the issue. Wikipedia rules around essays and guidelines are quite specific that there has to be an actual, cogent and valid reason — which "that's only an essay, so neener neener" most certainly is not — to disregard the position presented in a guideline. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect per DGG. Hiding T 09:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all In Wikipedia's early "we'll take anything" days, there were lots of articles about each individual episode of each television show that had fans, and there was a feeling that every 30 minute program was "entitled" to an article all its own. More recently, articles about individual episodes of a television show have been reviewed to see if the episode itself is notable, and most shows fail the test. While a series itself is inherently notable, individual episodes have to demonstrate notability by coverage in independent sources. As an analogy, most individual episodes of Dallas would not be notable, although "Who Shot J.R." had widespread coverage in the news. People freak out if I use "the m-word", so I will only say, feel free to edit the parent article. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the debate about television episodes is still out. I consider those early days more a "we are more accepting of editors contributions" than "we'll take anything", and universal negative media about wikipedia current deletion policy seems to echo this setiment. Ikip (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a substantive reason why we should deem unreferenced stubs about individual television series episodes, which consist only of a plot summary with no demonstration of any actual impact on anything, to be encyclopedic material? Or is this just an "I like it" argument? Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A substantive reason? Stubs should be tagged for expansion so as to improve wiki. Your arguments inre "impact" are subjective. Or is your own argument simply a result of WP:UGH? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unreferenced stub is not entitled to stick around Wikipedia permanently on the basis that it might be expandable. An article can be deleted at any time if it doesn't already meet Wikipedia rules around notability and reliable sources. And by the way, the notion that separate unreferenced stub articles about each individual episode of a TV show somehow improves Wikipedia is pretty damn subjective itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Educating and informing readers isn't encyclopedic? Or does your definition of encyclopedic amount to a "what I like" argument? We can use the definition at the OED or the one at the five pillars, but nowhere in the definitions can I see a definition of encyclopedic material being limited to that which Bearcat has decided has had "impact on anything". Now we can argue all day about whether something has impacted on a viewer or an audience or this, that and the other, or we could simply stop pretending that any reason to keep or delete amounts to anything more than opinion. Encyclopedias inform people. They contain information on a variety of subjects. If we want to engage in emotive language, we could ponder if we really wish to censor what information people can have access to when they visit Wikipedia, and on what basis? Notability guidance was constructed to avoid self-promotion, not to avoid informing people. Hiding T 11:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to see them merged into seasonal summaries in the future. Larger articles can be standalone and still be in the season summary. Currently List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes isn't a summary, it is just a list of episodes without context. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as my comments and other editors comments above. Ikip (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 'merge to list article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge all, unless (at least one) reliable source (and not just a review) is provided to demonstrate that any individual episode is especially notable for whatever reason and can stand on its own separate from the rest and thereby merits a full encyclopedia entry. I'm guessing that if kept (with the possible exception of Baffler Meal), they're not likely to ever be expanded beyond a stub anyways. -- OlEnglish (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and simply tag for expansion, if "stub" is such a worry. WP:FICT is not a guideline, and is not even a decent essay. Using that as a reason for deletion is a non-argument and editors should not allow it to cloud their considerations. As for a redirect, if informations about individual episodes would overburden the parent article, they are BY CURRENT GUIDELINE allowed to have their own article... else the parent article will be 20 pages long. That gets kind of ridiculous in a paperless encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Baffler Meal, as it is the episode launching the Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters and the article cites independent reliable sources that make this episode easily pass the general notability guideline. Keep or merge the rest, but discussion on whether to merge or keep separate ought to occur on appropriate talk pages rather than AfD. This AfD is a good example of why the proposed WP:FICT guideline is completely useless. Though the consensus on the talk page of that proposed guideline is that WP:FICT isn't intended to be used as a reason to delete, here it is being used as a reason to delete, before it is even accepted as a guideline. Will people ever agree on whether Space Ghost is "important" enough (even though it spun off several other shows, which to me is a good indicator of importance), whether each episode has a "significant role" within the series (how do you even decide this for an animated talk show parody?), or whether the DVD commentary has enough "real-world coverage"? Rather than help us resolve stale old perennial debates, it simply introduces new things for us to argue about. DHowell (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~The independent reference for "Baffler Meal" doesn't even mention the episode by name, much less support any of the paragraph attributed to the reference in the article.~~ The Chicago Tribune reference doesn't support any of the information credited. The remaining articles consist solely of plot summary, in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. If the list of episodes gets too long, people should feel free to break it down into seasons.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck are you talking about? Is the Ctrl-F key not working on your keyboard? I must assume that you are not being deliberately deceptive, because at least two unarguably independent references have been in the "Baffler Meal" article even before this nomination, and they both specifically name this episode. From the Toronto Star: "In the episode dubbed 'Baffler Meal,' Space Ghost buys hundreds of hamburgers with which to erect a fort for a food fight." From the Chicago Reader: "The Aqua Teen characters debuted in the 'Baffler Meal' episode as a trio of talking fast-food items..." DHowell (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No idea how I missed that sentence. Struck that part of comment. I will still point out that The characters, while similar to what they are today, were still far from being developed. Master Shake is still the leader of the team, but has no hands, a Space Ghost emblem or sticker on his back (which disappears after being knocked over by Space Ghost toward the end of the episode), a less obnoxious attitude than in the series, and is chocolate, as opposed to the regular series in which it is a green flavor (first lime, and later, pistachio, according to DVD commentary). He was voiced by Dave Willis. Frylock had crinkle-cut fries, legs, an amulet worn around his neck called the Amulet of Idahocules, a fry sword, and was voiced by Matt Maiellaro. Meatwad looked and sounded much like he currently does, but is uniformly depressed and more subservient to Shake, and constantly says the phrase, "The bun is in your mind." Master Shake and Frylock had voices and personalities similar to Ignignokt and Err, respectively. Frylock is also not the brains of the team is all attributed to the Chicago Reader, and none of it seems to be there. The closest I can find is Remodeled for a series of their own -- think Tracey Ullman-era Simpsons versus the golden age stuff -- the narcissistic milk shake, childlike meatball, and responsible box of fries were allegedly a crime-fighting team, which doesn't support that information at all.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I've moved that reference, as it appears to at least support the first sentence of that paragraph. The rest may be based on a mixture of primary sources, DVD commentary, and perhaps some original research. I don't have the DVD, so I can't verify at this time. Still, this is an editing issue, not a reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that the two independent sources aren't sourcing much of anything, and the references to the episode are passing mentions in articles devoted to other topics. The entire article doesn't need to be devoted to the topic, but a couple of one-sentence asides to a topic in articles devoted to other things don't qualify as the significant coverage necessary to pass WP:N.—Kww(talk) 03:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ok
- 1) FICT is not a guideline by any stretch of imagination.
- 2) Even if it were, the general perspective seems to be that it only adds reasons for notability.
- 3) Finally, (and this is my most important and controvertial point), these articles contribute positively to Wikipedias general coverage of the subject "Space Ghost". However, the article Space Ghost Coast to Coast is already very long, so merging would be a bad editing decision. If you take this bigger perspective, considering not only this article but also the entire subject, it is clear that keeping the articles is the best move for our encyclopedia. Now I know some policywonks are going to come in here and make a big fuss about notability and procedure, quoting n+1 rules and regulations, so I will pre-emptively respond.
  - a) If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. - Policy
  - b) There is a feasible limit for article size that depends on page download size for Wikipedia's dial-up and microbrowser readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles; however, because Wikipedia does not require paper, we can include more information, provide more external links, update more quickly, and so on. - Policy
  - c) Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. - Policy

AfD hero (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these are merged, the potential merge target is not Space Ghost Coast to Coast, but List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes, a separate article which is not too long to accomodate the extra information without splitouts. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I checked out the first episode which seems amply covered in good sources. The nomination seems misplaced in that the nominator appears to want a merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nominator can always include "redirect" as one option among several. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator believes that "redirect" is a valid option, then it should not have been brought to AfD. See WP:BEFORE, which says "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."

Keep all per WP:NOTPAPER and over seven years of precedent for episode articles. They're episodes of a notable TV show. WP:NOTPAPER is policy, yet WP:FICT is just a proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. An individual episode of a TV show is not automatically notable just because the TV show as a whole is notable — the episode has to demonstrate independent notability as a topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nominator's assertion that these articles do not meet WP:FICT. They clearly pass the first fork of the proposal (importance of work of fiction). The second fork is currently under dispute and is likely to be completely rewritten judging by discussions on the talk page, so it is hard to say that these fail it. The third fork is apparently met (at least in some cases) due to the fact that several of these influenced the creation of spin-off shows, as described by TBone777 above. I find it very hard to believe that no source could be found that mentions this. JulesH (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2009 (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.