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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lost (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lost (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was a member of the List of Lost episodes mediation a few months ago, where we unanimously came up to a consensus regarding season/individual episode articles. The guideline that we established for season episodes straight from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#General article guidelines reads as follows:

"In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles. These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments."

As of now, these pages do not discuss any themes or character developments; they are blatantly plot summaries. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Point 7 (Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.), the current season pages do not pass this policy and should be deleted. -- Wikipedical 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I definitely do NOT want this AfD to be seen as an attempt to overpower the mediation. I am not presenting any arguments whatsoever regarding redundancy with individual episode articles.

I am merely acting as a committed member of WikiProject Lost and fully believe that deleting these articles now will overall benefit the quality of our Lost articles and Wikipedia as a whole. I also hope and expect this deletion to be temporary until we as a Project can create meaningful pages discussing thematic and character developments over the seasons. Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom, material is duplicated in the List of and individual episode articles. Lostcruft? Otto4711 07:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.Lumaga 07:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and let the WikiProject Lost people decide if they want seasonal summaries in addition to individual show summaries. I find them useful and interesting even though I don't watch the show. Flip a coin as to which format is better, or keep both as a better solution. I don't see it as a violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Point 7, because the individual episode articles are even more detailed plot summaries. See: White Rabbit (Lost) for a single episode summary. This should have been a request for comment, and not a vote for deletion since there is discussion already going on in the WikiProject Lost page as to which format is better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I am not against the format of articles about seasons, I am against blatant plot summaries. I posted this last week at the WikiProject talk page, and only two editors have replied. In fact, Lost editors did discuss which format is better. If interested, read the mediation. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WikiProject Lost is hardly a different group than the people you see commenting here now. The nom left a note on the talk page of WP:LOST, so there's no reason to have a split discussion there as well. -- Ned Scott 23:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Jyothisingh 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). --Gabi S. 11:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the nomination is persuasive and the reasoning sound. Note that the nominator is "WikiProject Lost people". Guy (Help!) 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — No valid reason provided for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles don't pass policy? How is that not valid? -- Wikipedical 18:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your interpretation, I'm saying it is wrong.. so it must be. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Terence Ong 18:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We had the mediation and if there is a problem bring it up on the talk page so we can fix it. --theDemonHog 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the other keeps. - Peregrinefisher 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Resolute 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current concerns seem more like clean-up issues than deletion issues. FrozenPurpleCube 20:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that reasonable time has been given for said clean-up, and it has yet to happen. It's not worth the effort, because it has no significant value. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur Spindrift 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. Further, it seems to me that these season-wide summaries can fulfill the mediated guideline with additional refinement. As the nom says, "I also hope and expect this deletion to be temporary..." so I see no point in deleting this only to recreate it later. If there's a content problem, just edit it now.--Leflyman^Talk 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't look for a reason to keep them when we have no reason other than "someone might turn it into something different that is worth keeping". Since the creation of WP:LOST and other organized efforts, I would think we have given this a more than reasonable "grace period". -- Ned Scott 23:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per FrozenPurpleCube, seems like a clean up issue. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. I also don't see the point to these when there are already an article for the show and articles for each episode. TJ Spyke 23:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regardless of the fact that individual episodes have articles, it makes sense to have a summary page for every season as well. TSO1D 04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see entry above.
• Delete All This information is duplicate. Davidpdx 11:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All I think that with Lost as plot driven as it is, we should give people an overview of the entire season. A complete overview would be far too long for the Lost page. Also, I think we should make a decision here first before deciding the fate of the other two season pages.- JustPhil 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep 88.108.173.118 13:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into one article called Lost synopses and then Improve the article. I'm against deleting because the articles give a good background of the main events of the plot lines in Lost but it doesn't need one article for each season and some information is repeated on all three articles. --Lakeyboy 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are synopses all over Wikipedia. I find them useful. billlund 04:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that plot summaries are a problem on Wikipedia is no reason to not fix that problem. I can find a hell of a lot of typos, but that's no reason to not remove typos. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A counterproductive suggestion. Chensiyuan 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't even make sense. These articles have no value, at all. I could create some article called "Lost story summary sub plot" or something crazy like that, and people would vote to keep it even if I created it just to make a point. Holding on to crap and an article structure that doesn't make sense is counterproductive. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepManderiko 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page acts as an umbrella for the individual episodes. Readers looking for a concise synopsis of the season can easily reference this page without having to sift through each individual episode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.194.69 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep like said above put it into one article such as Lost seasons and give more detailed descriptions of each season within it Jezabelda 13:27, 4 January — Jezabelda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Weak abstain 86.4.60.229 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These pages were much better when they contained summaries of the entire season, episode by episode. I lost interest in editing when we went to this format. Cominbg back to this page fresh today I didn't even notice the links to the individual episodes buried on the bottom of the page. Horrible Web usability--doesn't help the reader at all. --Sixtrojans 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think people understand that the only reason these articles still exist was as a compromise to end a previous dispute. They have no actual value and were only used to get people to stop arguing. That debate is long since dead, and we don't need these articles. -- Ned Scott 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I was one of the parties in the original mediation, and the creation of these season articles was one of the core reasons that we were even able to navigate through the process. The debate took months, and I am disappointed that Wikipedical (one of the other parties in the mediation) decided to propose these articles for deletion so soon after we had come to our painfully-achieved compromise. I am also disappointed that there was so little attempt to gather further comment (just a brief note on the WikiProject page, in the middle of the holiday season). The articles may need some cleanup, but that's no reason to delete them. --Elonka 02:10, 6 January 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.