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 delete. The WP:V/WP:NOR concerns prevail, not having been addressed. Sandstein 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of very special episodes[edit]

List of very special episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourcable, subjective list. There is no reliable way to tell if these episodes were ever referred to as a very special episode in the marketing for them unless someone has taped the commercials. The intro paragraph gives a vague criteria for the list as considered by many viewers to be "very special episodes". This is open to interpretation and again cannot be sourced. Fails WP:V.--Crossmr 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would also call this listcruft; I'm not real sure why anyone would want a 'list of very special episodes'. I also think the criteria are vague, and I can't really think how to fix that problem. --Brianyoumans 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft & OR. meshach 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Meshach. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Special Delete of this list with unreasonable criteria that is impractical to maintain.-- danntm ^T _C 02:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. What someone neglected to mention is that the intro paragraph on the very special episode page is more credible. The list was initally on that page, but people complained that it made the article too long, so it was moved to its own page. There were commercials that used the term very special episode (an entire episode was even dedicated to the term on SuperSecret TV Formulas), and sure, I don't have them all on tape, but even if I did, what would I do, mail it to people to prove my point?

By the way, why do a lot of Wikipedians want TV-terminology-related lists deleted? It happened with Chuck Cunningham syndrome (in fact, that entire article was deleted and protected), it happened with Cousin Oliver, and now it's happening with very special episode. And the last time I checked, listcruft was an essay, not a guideline, so how is that a justifiable argument? I read it, and...what, just people a list isn't important to you means it's not important period? Anthony Rupert 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro paragraph not withstanding there are no sources provided for any of these episodes showing a single one was referred to in its marketing as a very special episode. That is the problem. Its not a matter of how you describe what a very special episode is, or whether any given editor claims to remember that an episode was marketed as a very special episode, its a matter of whether or not you can actually prove it was. WP:V is not about what is true, its about what you can prove is true with reliable sources.--Crossmr 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you didn't actually answer any of the questions I asked; you're just repeating what you've already said. Anthony Rupert 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on other article's deletion here. I wasn't involved in their deletion and even if I was, this isn't really the place to discuss it. As far as mailing people tapes, it appears one episode was about the very special phenomenon marketing term. Unless they shot all hundred or so shows that are on that list across the screen at breakneck speed, they were all on the tape. Each and every example on that page needs a source per WP:V.--Crossmr 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Crossmr — I wonder if you mean, in the final sentence of your remarks rebutting Anthony Rupert, "WP:V is not about what is true ..." In any case, I will vote to delete per your nomination. Yes, I'm sure some of these episodes on this list were "very special" in their own right, but I personally don't have the time to go through old tapes (which may or may not exist) and see the promo commercials (if someone else does, great). I also question many of the examples in the list, since they appear to be more "dramatic" renditions of comedy shows than actual episodes promoted as VSEs. [[Briguy52748 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)]] (P.S. — This vote to delete was the result of a very special episode).[reply]
• Strong keep - unique list, useful 2_of_8 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And how do you address the issue of WP:V? Neither the list being unique or useful overrides that policy.--Crossmr 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if references added before end of AfD. Otherwise, delete but without prejudice to recreation if someone wants to create a sourced article. JYolkowski // talk 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I've found this list useful in the past. WMMartin 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  again, a list or article being useful doesn't mean it can disregard WP:V. I'd find keeping an address book useful on wikipedia, but it fails on several policies.--Crossmr 18:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Very helpful list complementing, but too large for, Very special episode.--Oakshade 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  For the third time, perhaps I'll point to this essay WP:ILIKEIT. Whether the list is useful, nice, helpful, etc is meaningless. None of those reasons trump WP:V or WP:OR. Hopefully the closing admin will recognize that the people insisting it be kept haven't addressed a single inssue with this list.--Crossmr 16:27, 9 December 2006 (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.