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 keep after improvements. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager)[edit]

Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is solely a wholly unreferenced plot summary and makes no claims to notability.

Original ((unreferenced)) and ((notability)) tags remained for 23 days before article was redirected ("+ redirection of non-notable, unreferenced television episode;") to List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes#Season 4: (1997-1998). ScorpSt (talk · contribs) reverted: "Undid revision 146348203 by Pd THOR (talk) Edits were not discussed and not keeping with precedent", further removing the maintenance tags.

Replaced tags, adding a ((prod)); all tags removed by 67.135.49.29 (talk · contribs) w/o comment. Added this ((afd)) and replaced maintenance tags. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: The article has changed substantially since the nomination (including a speedy delete to erase copyvio). --Eyrian 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question - Not that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an excuse, but is there something about this particular article that distinguishes it from the hundreds of other articles on episodes of the various Star Trek incarnations that requires its deletion? Otto4711 13:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Star Trek episodes are generally notable, and I see no reason why this is an exception. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this notable? There's no reason to assume the conference of notability to all things Star Trek, and I see no reason why this article is an exception to WP:N/WP:RS. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ample precedent. Episode articles for broadcast television shows seem to be accepted by the community. It's not just a substub, and a merge would bog down the target. I personally would like to see more context and information other than just plot summaries in these types of articles, but that's just me. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Episode articles for broadcast television shows are acceptable iff they fall under the guidelines and policies for all articles, they are not special or exempt any more any any articles are. WP:EPISODE recommends tagging, merging, and redirecting, all of which were done. That guideline further recommends to "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research."; not only is the majority of this article unverifiable, it is solely a plot summary with no reliable sources for real world context. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the majority of this article unverified or unverifiable? Those are wholly different creatures. It has a link to an official website that can verify the plot description as well as the episode rating - that may not be a lot but that is verified information. Have you attempted to look for sources, or are you just decrying it as unverifiable? A google search turns up quite a few hits, in fact. There are essays on Trek and religion that reference this episode. Take a peek. Besides - I never cited WP:EPISODE, I cited ample precedent on the subject. Episode articles survive AfD debates on a regular basis - the community has no will to delete these sort of things. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, the factual information in the article (to include the plot retelling) is in all likelihood verifiable, and probably to reliable second- or third-party sources. However, there is no "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance" in the article. You mentioned essays about "Trek and religion", and if they're focused on this episode that would be quite pertinent, but are they reliable sources? This article is bare facts and a retelling of its story, which doesn't make it notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by pd_THOR (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 July 2007.

• Incorrect. It contains substantial real-world content, including air date, creative staff, and critical commentary (the rating). All of these are verified (the production staff can be taken from the primary source) --Eyrian 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again (see above), you're right. All of the current factual information in the article is likely verifiable. While not being in the article currently, these alone do not warrant the article's deletion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So... it contains substantial, verified real-world content? That seems to be a reason to keep it. --Eyrian 16:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not contain verified "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance"; consisting only of verified plot retelling & production details. That seems like a reason to merge/redirect it--barring that, deleting it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It has sourced analysis: The rating. Shallow, but extant. It's quite sufficient for notability. --Eyrian 17:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree; every television program and their constituent episodes receive ratings, that doesn't confer notability unless there was something particularly notable about the rating itself (eg. highest rating of the series, of the night it was broadcast, etc.) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, distributed and syndicated by major television outlets. --Eyrian 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is ... but that doesn't automatically confer notability. A great uncountable number of things are distributed and syndicated by major television outlets: WP:OTHERSTUFF. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm not making reference to any other article. Simply saying that selective distribution by a major outlet seems to be a sufficient case for notability in most examples (WP:MUSIC, for instance). --Eyrian 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to OTHERSTUFF generically, in that "other stuff" is distributed and syndicated, but that doesn't mean that because this article is, it is equally notable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is good discussion about the episode in the "notes" section, so it is not limited to a plot summary. Yes, some of the content in the notes section needs sourcing, but I have little doubt that it could be sourced, so see no reason to delete here. JulesH 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - into the LOE. Nothing in the notes is cited, thus it needs to be or get removed. Everything should be cited. Even then, nothing says it couldn't be listed on the LOE page as well. There is not enough real world content to justify the expanded plot, which takes up more of the article than anything else (which should not happen). Plots are for context, not meant to act as a "standalone". Nothing screams "i'm notable" either. Got a Neilsen rating, ok...what does the show average? AfD was probably the wrong way to go anyway. A "Proposed merger" tag should have been placed so that all the concerns could be discussed on the relevant talk page with an explaination of why it should be merged. Star Trek being notable doesn't make the episodes themselves notable. This wasn't split from an overly long article, so the idea of "inherited notability" isn't even close. Yes, we know Wiki isn't a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we put everything in the world on here. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Try a merge proposal with all the requisite reason as to why the information does not warrant its own page at the moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a consensus that episodes of notable TV shows merit articles. A merge into the list of episodes is impractical. Clarityfiend 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the consensus that all episodes of notable TV shows merit articles regardless of individual notability? WP:EPISODE doesn't provide this same. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arent pretty much all the TV series notable? I would say pretty much the opposite, looking at the number of episode pages deleted here recently Corpx 22:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It just needs to be reworked, that's all. Ravenmasterq 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It needs to feel less like a review, and perhaps incorporate some of the outside sources to become more than just a synopsis.Ravenmasterq 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Zidel333 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait... why? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you so set on having it deleted? Virtually all notable TV shows on Wikipedia have seperate articles for each and every seperate episode to date. If there is proof that is a copy paste of another website, I, myself, as well as a good friend of mine, From Andoria with Love, who is the 2nd largest contributor on Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki will rewrote it. He knows his stuff, and will be a great help. All it needs is to a complete rewrite, that is not good enough a reason for it to be deleted. Zidel333 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not dead-set on deleting the article, but as it is now it doesn't have any reliable, notable real-world context. The issue is not that the article can/needs to be re-written (although in light of the copyvio issue, it does) the issue is that the article is not notable. At Memory Alpha we have a completely different set of standards for inclusion, and they don't really apply here at all. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never said Wikipedia was run like Memory Alpha, I say it only to emphasize that he is a near expert on the subject (as close as one can get in terms of Star Trek knowledge anyway). This is Deletion review is disgraceful as it flies in the face of all logic and reason. Zidel333 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Upon review, this is taken word for word from the Star Trek website. Change my Keep to Speedy Delete.Ravenmasterq 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give the link that it's copied from? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently he's right - [1]. Looks like it has to go as a speedy now. Striking my above keep !vote. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if the plot summary was a copyvio at one point, it no longer is one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources indicating real world context, fails WP:N. Note: There is no consensus to make articles for every episode of a notable series. WP:EPISODE says the opposite in fact. All of the keeps are contradicting policy and guidelines as if it were the policy and guideline. Jay32183 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V Giggy _U^CP 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge into List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. I'm like Star Trek: Voyager as much as the next person (well, unless the next person doesn't like it :D), but I don't agree with the notion that the notability of a television show automatically sprinkles some kind of magical notability over its episodes and characters. The redirect can always be undone if/when reliable and independent sources can be found to expand the article to include information beyond plot and basic production details. Extraordinary Machine 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:EPISODE and WP:N. No independent sources giving significant coverage to this episode. Fan sites do not count. There are a lot of these articles about episodes which fail these guidelines. I wouldn't mind a transwiki to a star trek wiki somewhere Corpx 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unless there is a reason why this episode is singled out for deletion, but the episode preceding it, the episode proceeding it and everything in between is not. The reasons I see stated above for deletion, regarding the insignificance and so forth should apply to all Star Trek episodes from all seasons, not just this one episode from this one season from this one series. --Gvsualan 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure on the nominator's motives, but I think WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here. If I were to guess, I'd say that they're next. Corpx 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So the fact that there are categories for each series of episodes (Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes, et al.), with nearly 600 pages for each episode (some for example almost 4 years old), plus countless pages on individual (and sometimes insignificant characters) exists means that this entire scenario has been a unadministered disaster from the get-go. It seems someone certainly has opened a can of worms for themselves, now haven't they...--Gvsualan 04:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• From my experience, plenty of episodes have been deleted lately, because they fail the set criteria in WP:EPISODE and WP:N Corpx 04:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When I first heard that this episode was up for deletion, at first I thought there had been a grave misunderstanding considering that every episode of basically every major TV show has an article or will have an article on here. Now I see it's not a misunderstanding, but rather a joke. As pointed out above, "Concerning Flight" (the episode preceding this one) isn't up for deletion, nor is "Waking Moments" (the episode that follows it). Are you telling me you want to delete the other 700+ Star Trek episode pages you have on the site? All this page needs is some sprucing up, which Zidel333 has already offered to do and I will be glad to offer her any assistance I can. (It's been years since I've seen the episode... fortunately, I have access to the DVDs if needed.) --From Andoria with Love 04:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that other articles violate policy is no reason to keep this one, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The nominator is under no obligation to nominate every article of the same type for deletion to get a page deleted, WP:ALLORNOTHING. Jay32183 05:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I declare Ignore all rules. This Policy throwing to and fro is replacing meaningful discussion and debate at the matter on hand; nothing new is being said. Give me until Saturday 23:59 EST to fix the article to satisfy The Heymann Standard. Then at 24:00 EST we can resume this conversation. Zidel333 05:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Jay32183: Oh, of course, silly me. It's still a joke. ;) Anyway, I've added a brief summary (making it about the same length and containing about the same amount of info as many of the other episode pages), which, of course, can always be expanded/improved upon. So keep the page and work on it. Sillies. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Zidel333: I concur! Down with the rules! Voyager episodes have rights just like any other Star Trek episode! This is discrimination! Rise up my brothers and sisters! Together, we will bring the man down! --From Andoria with Love 05:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Content isnt the problem at this AFD. If you can establish "significant coverage from independent sources, this episode is deemed notable. (WP:N) Corpx 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a summary and Zidel has volunteered to expand that summary. There are your sources, and I'm sure more will come along. :D And work on your contractions, man! :P --From Andoria with Love 05:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Memory Alpha is a tertiary source that should not be referenced to add content here per WP:OR. The sources you're looking for must be reliable Corpx 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Having actually seen the episode, I can verify that the Memory Alpha page is accurate. Thus, I can confirm that it is reliable, in this case. By the way, if you would like to take the time, you can check it over with the episode's transcript, which you can find here. Aside from some spelling errors and possible mis-association of dialogue (which is rare), the transcript presents accurate dialogue. (It was taken from official DVD subtitles/closed-captions.) You can also check out the summary at StarTrek.com. If that's not good enough, then I suggest buying a copy of the Star Trek: Voyager Companion, which features a detailed summary of the episode. --From Andoria with Love 05:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Memory Alpha is not a reliable secondary source. There is nothing that can be done to make this article satisfy the requirements for inclusion. Most individual episode articles should be deleted because no one has any reliable secondary sources to provide more than just plot. Jay32183 19:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• According to that exact policy, as pointed out to me by Renegade54, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The community of Memory Alpha are authoritative resources on this subject. By the arguments presented here, though, the episode has to be summarized on an authoritative web page otherwise that summary isn't reliable. So basically what you're saying here is there is no such thing as a reliable source, nor can one exist. How, exactly, does that work, Jay, my main man? ;) --From Andoria with Love 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oooh, another one: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." We have that. --From Andoria with Love 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No wiki meets the requirements for reliable sources on Wikipedia, including Wikipedia. Also, you need secondary sources for notability. Memory Alpha, like all wikis, is a tertiary source. You also need more than plot. Jay32183 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikis are tertiary sources, per WP:OR and can be edited by anyone. Just like forums/most blogs, they're not notable Corpx 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per our founder[2], SqueakBox 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem before you use that as a valid reason for deletion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I really don't like this tendency I keep coming across for some users to essentially say "If Jimbo said it, it must be true". Extraordinary Machine 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed to see that Jimbo has apparently changed his views since the early days of Wikipedia, when he said "I agree with this one completely" with regard to this:

Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap.

• • (Source, at meta; yeah, it's not a diff by Jimbo, but it was 2002, and if Jimbo was misrepresented back then he would have known. Apparently the original source is one of the mailing lists.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if we go with the Jimbo-Said-It view, then you might find this interesting More: I hadn't noticed this had been linked already. But it doesn contradict the previous post, at least on whether or not Jimbo can be cited as a ruling. i ^{(said) (did)} 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My citation of the earlier Jimbo quote was in response to the citation of the recent diff, and lamenting that Jimbo seems to have changed his opinion on this issue. That said, I agree that "Jimbo said it" isn't sufficient justification for anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. Jimbo != consensus. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That does not mean Jimbo should be ignored though. No one has done anything to address the concern that the article has no reliable secondary sources independent from the topic. Because of that, deletion is the only option, and there really is nothing to discuss. Jay32183 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Affiliated sources are acceptable for establishing information. Notability is established by independent distribution of the subject matter. What's the problem? --Eyrian 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
          • There are no reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. There is no valid argument to keep any article under that condition. Deletion is the only option. Please read WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. Notability on "Mortal Coil" has not been established. Jay32183 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please see my strong keep reasoning below to see reliable sources indicating the notability of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing[edit]

• Upon further further review, with the new synopsis and a bit of expanded information, Keep it for now.Ravenmasterq 21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Jay32183: Ah, yes, but according to WP:WTF, WP:N can be ignored in the case that WP:FIP and WP:RIA are followed. Also, according to WP:MIB, WP:NOR can be used only when WP:ST is WP:CGI is implemented, which clearly is not the case here, especially since WP:DEP and WP:TNR clearly show that WP:FA and WP:GQ were followed, to the letter, as per the policy presented at WP:PPO. Granted, WP:LL states that WP:WB and WP:UPN must be followed in the event that WP:QA cannot be met, but that's okay because WP:TM says we can turn to WP:FYI in this matter and ignore WP:TAOBBATED completely. Oh, and don't forget, when in doubt, WP:STFU. --From Andoria with Love 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty. Anyway, can we end this discussion and remove the deletion template from the article now, or do others need to sound off like a broken record and keep quoting abbreviated policies that have nothing to do with anything anymore? --From Andoria with Love 15:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "WP:WTF, WP:N can be ignored in the case" - An essay should be used as reason to over-ride a guideline? Corpx 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Um, I think he/she is mocking all the abbreviations used in this AfD. WP:WTF. --Phirazo 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I guess my saracasm detector is off today.  :) Corpx 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean there's actually a policy link at WP:WTF? WTF???!!! :P --From Andoria with Love 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I showed you all those policy pages so that you'd know that you have not presented a valid argument to keep, and you actually cannot make one. The reasoning behind your "keep" is not a sound argument and should be ignored by the closing admin. You should familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and guidelines if you wish to contribute to AFD's with meaningful arguments. Jay32183 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • What you say is true, Jay, but the point about excessive use of acronyms and Wikipedia jargon is an important one. You probably should read WP:WTF, actually, and remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Supposedly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:WTF has no impact on this article. The deletion arguments are all based on policy and guideline and all the keep arguments are specifically listed in the arguments to avoid essay. When you're drawing false conclusions you need to be ignored, which is why deletion is the only reasonable result for this AFD. People who don't get that don't understand what Wikipedia is. If we don't have enough reliable secondary sources to warrant a stand alone article for "Mortal Coil", then we do not have an article on "Mortal Coil". That's not a bureaucratic statement, it is the only logical conclusion. Jay32183 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You're right that WP:WTF has no impact on the article Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager). However, it does have a direct impact on the manner in which this deletion debate is being conducted. The constant recourse to jargon and pointers to innumberable Byzantine policies does not help the discussion. Yes, deletion should be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines; however, it should be possible to explain those policies and guidelines in a manner which isn't condescending and exclusionary to editors who spend more time working on articles than participating in deletion debates.
                    
                    As for your actual argument (which is a reasonable one), reliable secondary sources have recently been added to the article. Therefore, logically, you should change your !vote to keep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • • The article still makes no attempt to establish real world significance using reliable secondary sources. The sources added are meaningless. You need more than just plot. Jay32183 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You must have missed the section titled "Theme", which is sourced to a cultural-studies text and is not about the plot. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I didn't miss it. I actually am including the theme section when I say that no attempt to establish real world significance is made in the article. Jay32183 23:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Well, then your definition of "real-world significance" is different from mine. I would think that a non-trivial discussion in a book published by Routledge would constitute "real-world significance". It's a reliable source, independent of the subject, providing significant coverage of the subject. What part of WP:N does this source not fulfill? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • If our definitions are different, then yours is wrong. The theme of a work of fiction is part of the fiction. You need discussion of the development (writing, directing, casting, set building) and critical analysis. What you put into the theme section just repeats what happened in the plot, it doesn't have the analysis of television critics. Even if the authors weren't involved, they didn't say anything about this episode fits into the real world. Jay32183 01:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Jay, the theme of a work of fiction is part of the fiction, but it's not a part that is equal to the plot. It takes analysis to describe a work's theme, and that analysis is itself an element of the "real world" — that is, the world of criticism. Now, the analysis from Star Trek: The Human Frontier isn't particularly deep, but I fail to see how it is not critical analysis. It uses this episode as part of a larger discussion of how religion is treated in Star Trek: Voyager, and draws a contrast with another episode. That's an act of critical analysis, which is part of the real world. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • The theme could have analysis, but there isn't any in this article. The potential for this article hasn't even been demonstrated, so waiting to delete the article is hurting Wikipedia. The article could actually improve without meeting the criteria for inclusion. The basic criterion for inclusion is being the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. That has not been met, and probably won't be. Jay32183 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Your choice of words is suspect, and actually funny. Hurting Wikipedia ?!?! How is listening to Wikipedians chime in, and debate the topic at hand hurting Wikipedia?? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so there is time and more importantly space, and besides, consenus has not truly been reached. Zidel333 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Jay, you are not the sole arbiter of what constitute "reliable secondary sources independent of the topic". Neither am I. I think that the sources I've found are reliable and sufficiently independent (since "licensed material" ≠ "advertising"). You disagree. Clearly, neither of us is going to convince the other. How about we wait and see whether other Wikipedians think that notability has been established or not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This completely fails WP:PLOT. Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha. There isn't any demonstration that this episode is notable in the real world, and just being an episode of Star Trek doesn't make it notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). As for the all or nothing argument in relation to other Star Trek: Voyager episodes, if an episode of that show has real-world, attributable context, then it should stay. Otherwise it should be deleted. --Phirazo 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I have lost all faith in humanity. I hope you all are happy. Zidel333 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To LOE page. The sources are not notability-asserting. i ^{(said) (did)} 06:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Reliable secondary sources on the subject of Star Trek: Voyager episodes do exist: here's one, and here's another. I don't happen to own these books, but I'm sure someone who does could add the relevant citations. These sources meet WP:RS: they are both written by "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and their publishers (Pocket Books and Virgin Books, respectively) have "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further source found: If for some reason the episode guides are not considered sufficient, see also Star Trek: The Human Frontier, which discusses this episode specifically on pp. 148-149. I've added a citation to this scholarly book to the article, which should absolutely satisfy any notability concern. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — An episode of Star Trek: Voyager, which is a notable television series, thus this episode is inherently notable. The episode itself (a primary source) is reliable and indeed also verifiable. Josiah also points out above that multiple secondary sources can be added to the article. There's no deadline and remember that Wikipedia is not paper. Matthew 08:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josiah Rowe: I've already pointed out the Voyager Companion, but the people we're trying to convince are so desperately searching for a valid reason to delete the page (and have yet to find one, as you can see) and are so busy spouting asinine wiki acronyms that they apparently overlooked it or ignored it entirely. No bother, though; there's no consensus on this matter and the majority have asked for it to be kept, so unless Wikipedia has become a dictatorship or communist regime, they have to abide by what the community and keep the page. Of course, I'm sure there's an acronymous wiki policy supposedly proving me wrong. --From Andoria with Love 14:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. Being an episode of a notable television series does not make the episode inherently notable. And being well-referenced (now, which it was not initially) != to notability; both are requirements. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quote from the top of the page "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you intended to link to a policy that states notability is not inherited, not an essay that states a person's opinion. Could you please link me to this policy, though :)? Matthew 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate the benefit, but I didn't. The opinion is mine if you'd like to place a claim to it, I just link to where others have made the same argument to be succinct. To make my point though is to say that WP:INHERITED is not a criteria or viability for notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay then. So you clearly admit that it's your opinion that notability is not inherited, whereas I disagree and believe it is inherited. Matthew 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Welcome to the discussion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is actually a fact that notability is not inherited and it is completely meaningless that WP:ATA is an essay. WP:ATA is not being presented as an argument for deletion, but as a counter-argument towards your "keep". Presenting the argument that an article should be kept because of inherited notability contradicts WP:N, and you should never make it again. Learn to present a sound argument before trying to tell people they're wrong. Jay32183 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • A sound argument like the one I've presented, and you've rejected as "meaningless"? You may want to consider this essay, which is just as authoritative (or non-authoritative) as WP:ATA. Learn to treat others with respect before trying to hit them over the head with Wikipedia jargon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reiteration. The secondary sources are excellent; the article is now a well-cited plot summary that makes no claims to notability. The reference to Star Trek: The Human Frontier only sources that note, not any claim to notability. I can't read the book, and I won't make any claims to content based on the incredibly short snippets aforelinked; but it appears to me that the author is simply referencing the article, just as the Wikipedia article "Talaxian" does. What the article needs written into it is: "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." The article does not give any of those, only notes of interest from within the plot summary and production details. Now, if I am wrong, and Star Trek: The Human Frontier analyzes "Mortal Coil" specifically and makes real-world connections to its content instead of simply referencing or reiterating it, then that analysis and context should be written into the article (more substantially than a note, it should warrant in that case).

  I tried to remember specific episodes in Star Trek off the top of my head that I knew would be notable and came up with "Threshold", "The Best of Both Worlds", "Spock's Brain", and "The City on the Edge of Forever". All of these episodes either do or could meet WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#PLOT, and either do or could make great Wikipedia articles. This episode article as it stands is not one of those. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take it you mean to say "the author is simply referencing the episode" rather than "referencing the article". Based on the bits of Star Trek: The Human Frontier I was able to read its discussion of "Mortal Coil" by using Amazon's "Search Inside This Book" feature, I could see that the references are part of a thematic discussion of the treatment of religion in Star Trek: Voyager. I have expanded the note into a "theme" section, which in my judgment provides real-world context and sourced analysis.

    I think that some users may be misinterpreting what "real-world content" means in this sort of context. By my understanding, the existence of non-trivial citations in reliable sources is itself an indicator of notability, sufficient to provide real-world relevance for any topic. It's true that the sources are books about Star Trek — but that's where you'd expect to find discussion of a Star Trek episode. Similarly, in an article about a particular train, you would expect to find citations from works on trains. If works on the subject discuss the subject, why is there a need to find sources from outside the subject area? Such sources are, of course, welcome, but my reading of WP:N doesn't indicate that they're required. See WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I strongly disagree with using <show> guide books as sources to proclaim notability. This would mean that every single thing mentioned in those books are notable. I posted my concerns at [talk page] and got some responses. This would mean that every unit and every map in a game guide would be notable. Corpx 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree with the comparison with units and maps of video game levels. A television episode is usually a stand-alone work, comparable to a short story or novella, and can be individually analyzed by its themes and content, as well as for its effect on the culture-at-large. I'm not aware of how individual levels/units of a video game could be treated individually in the way that a television episode can. Television episodes are regularly reviewed individually; levels of a video game, to my knowledge, are not.

        If an episode guide has 2–4 pages on each episode of a television series, and includes more than a plot synopsis and cast list, why shouldn't it be treated as a source indicating notability of those episodes? The central question of notability is whether reliable sources have something worthwhile to say on the subject. Once these sources have been found, why is notability even in question? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't agree that the mere existence of non-trivial citations in reliable sources is itself an indicator of notability, because that could be all it's doing, referencing the episode. If, for example, a book on the possible future applications of nanotechnology were debunking the use of nanotech to reanimate life, that book might make references such as "this is a surprisingly common usage of nanotech in fiction ranging from "Mortal Coil" an episode of Star Trek: Voyager to Michael Crichton's Prey ". This doesn't mean the episode is notable, but only that these works of fiction make inappropriate use of nanotechnology. Similarly, a book written about Don J. Peon who was a prolific set designer, if it mentioned among all the work he had done that he had worked on "Mortal Coil", an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, that would be referencing the episode in a real-world context, but it certainly doesn't mean the episode was notable. These other works (be they books, news articles, or encyclopedia entries) are referencing the episode, but not discussing it itself.

      The problematic difference here is probably in the differences between referencing something in a real-world context, and further analyzing and discussing it. Star Trek: The Human Frontier discusses what happens in "Mortal Coil" in the discussion and analysis of religion in Star Trek, but not the episode itself, the references to the episode are only to mention what happened in the plot so as to further the discussion of religion. This (to probably include the whole chapter and/or book) would be excellent for Religion in Star Trek, but to use it in the article for "Mortal Coil" is only to say that "Michéle Barrett in the book Star Trek: The Human Frontier, discusses the plot of this episode in her examination of religion in Star Trek." And just because the plot of the episode can be used as the reference in the discussion of another topic, does not make the plot of the episode itself notable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • I see the distinction you're drawing, but I don't think it's one that's supported by established guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability defines "significant coverage" thus:""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." There's no exclusion for "mere references" in the course of another discussion. The discussion in Star Trek: The Human Frontier seems to me to be precisely the sort of thing WP:N is looking for: it addresses the subject in detail, no original research is needed to extract the content, and the discussion is more than trivial. (The Don J. Peon example you mention probably would be "trivial" in this context; I'm not sure about the nanotechnology example.)
        
        As a matter of fact, this sort of passing-but-significant reference is exactly the sort of thing which should be used to indicate notability: is the work in question part of a larger cultural discussion? Is it used as a touchstone for examinations of other topics? If reliable sources discuss the work in any significant detail, I say that the work meets WP:N. The nature of that discussion isn't really relevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right on that point, there is no distinction made between the two by policy or guidelines; and I guess that gets back to those derisive opinions of mine that Matthew pointed out above. At this juncture, I'm only making sure all points are covered and that my *ick* opinions are made on the subject. Thanks to your excellent work however, in the state the article is now, I wouldn't have tagged the article with anything in the first place. Is it notable now? Eh. I am leaning toward ambivalency now, but not acceptance. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second arbitrary break[edit]

• Keep I am a pretty strong deletionist, but even I think this is going to far. Episodes of popular shows are usually notable, episodes of marginal shows are not. People tend to view written works of fiction from a hundred years ago a great work of art worthy of great study, and a modern work of unwritten fiction a worthless piece of junk unworthy of attention by cultured people. There is no reason why a television episode cannot have as much coverage as a book. Jon513 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Episodes of major shows are notable and present the only space for legitimate cross-links to be made. These types of pages offer significant value to Wikipedia. TV shows are important cultural phenomena and Wikipedia is an appropriate place to document them. Tfine80 22:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and Redirect to Voyager LOE. This clearly fails the criteria spelled out at WP:EPISODE and makes no attempt to assert out-of-universe notability or importance. Fan-driven enthusiasm for individual episode articles is not grounds for overturning policy consensus. Eusebeus 02:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong storng keep. Unless Wikipedia has changed its policy to ban episode articles (good God, what's next?) this article has every reason to exist. And it is about a primary source. If there is original research or uncited claims, etc. then delete content as necessary. 23skidoo 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia policy on notability requires secondary sources. Episode articles can meet the requirements, see Abyssinia, Henry or Homer's Phobia, but this one does not. Jay32183 03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does: the Star Trek Voyager Companion or Star Trek: The Human Frontier. Both of these are reliable secondary sources, published by major publishers. "Real-world content" is not limited to newspapers. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The current article addresses, in my eyes, all of the nominator's concerns. When an AfD on a television episode causes so much disagreement, perhaps we as a community need to look at our collective interpretation of policy. Maxamegalon2000 04:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has now been fully sourced and meets notability. If anything, this AfD was a kick in th rear, but it got the article fixed (Not that AfD should be abused for this in the future). No longer meets any deletion criteria. --Edokter (Talk) 09:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Defined "abused"; what you are refering to is the The Heymann Standard. Personally, I don't think debating the article at hand as abusing the system, isn't that why the system is in place? Zidel333 13:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a new list of season 4 article. _{I know this is an AFD, but a merge should address all of the concerns about the article.}Most articles for episodes can easily be merged to a list while keeping the list at a reasonable length and keeping the same content. A new list template might need to be designed to contain the same information as the current infobox. I figure that having the information in a list will make it easier to cite, and to keep the article out of universe, and at the same time, a list is not a plot summary; a season is also more notable, and can have additional information, such as the reception of the season. G.A.S 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm putting this here to get to every one at once. First, real world context does not mean the source of the information comes from outside the show, it means the information is about the real world. In fact, a primary source can provide real world context, DVD commentary about the production for instance. There are secondary sources but they aren't being used to say anything. The Paul Ruditis book is being used to source the plot and an aspect of the fiction, the name of a fictional character. With the Star Trek: The Human Frontier, the article only says the episode is discussed with no analysis included. From the plot we get "Neelix's religious faith is challenged and ends up changing" and from the book we get "This episode deals with religious faith and how it can change." That says the exact same thing twice, that isn't an analysis. That book could contain analysis, but this article does not. With that in mind, not one valid "keep" argument has been raised. We have, in fact, already reached a consensus to delete the article. There are deletion arguments based on WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:EPISODE, while the keep arguments come straight out of WP:ATA. It is completely irrelevant that "Arguments to Avoid" is an essay rather than a policy or guideline, because it isn't being used as the delete argument. It is being used to refute keep arguments that get made so often that it became necessary to catalog them. It becomes tiresome to have to explain to the same person multiple times that there are plenty of "useful" things that get deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, dictionary definitions for example. So please, stop presenting invalid and unsound arguments, and stop being offended that articles get deleted. If you want to contribute to a Star Trek fan page then contribute to one, don't turn Wikipedia into one. Jay32183 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jay, please stop presenting your opinions as if they were fact. Let the closing admin determine whether the arguments being presented are valid or not. I happen to feel that the concerns of WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:WAF and WP:EPISODE have all been met; and so (more or less) does Pd THOR, who nominated the article for deletion. You disagree. That's fine. But please stop trying to use your interpretation of policy to bully those you disagree with. And stop using WP:ATA to WP:BASH your opponents. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under no circumstances will I allow anyone to think that they may present an argument specifically listed at WP:ATA with any merit. WP:BASH is absolute nonsense created and supported by people who do not know how to present arguments and have no clue that vote counting is not a part of consensus. Your opinion does not matter because it is supported by things that are factually incorrect. By definition, you cannot present a sound argument using factually incorrect information. There is no analysis in the article, there is no real world context in the article. Both of those are facts, not opinions. It's not that I disagree, it's that you're wrong. Jay32183 19:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this is a simple disagreement on interpretation of policy. It's your opinion that the section titled "Theme" does not constitute analysis. It's your opinion that the sources used in the article are insufficient for "real-world context". It's your opinion that WP:BASH is "absolute nonsense" (in fact, it has status precisely equal to WP:ATA). These are not facts in any objective sense. If we are to have civil discourse, you must recognize that your views are only opinions, and other interpretations may also be valid and accepted by the Wikipedia community. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have not once presented factually correct information during the discussion. This isn't a difference in interpretation of policy because the policy is not subjective. You are changing the definitions of analysis and notability to suit your needs. You haven't shown that "Mortal Coil" is the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. If you think you have then you do not know what the word "subject" means. There is no analysis in the article because no conclusions are drawn. Having an outside source repeat the plot is not analysis. WP:BASH is utter nonsense because it is mostly based on the idea that vote counting can be used to determine consensus, which is factually wrong and admins are supposed to avoid when closing AFD's, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. I have been assuming bad faith disruption on your part for quite sometime, since after reading all of the relevant policies, which you claim you have, delete is the only logical conclusion. You are trying to disrupt the AFD process with a convoluted and disguised "I like Star Trek" argument. Jay32183 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, thanks for admitting that you were assuming bad faith. At least that's honest. (And, for the record, this is not about "I like Star Trek". It's about my belief that Star Trek episodes, like episodes of a handful of other television series, have attained sufficient coverage in the culture-at-large that individual episodes are notable. Everything I've said here has been my honest opinion and interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am not trying to disrupt anything.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jay, all I've read from you in this AfD is opinion being presented as fact, invalid arguments, and now blatant accusations that Josiah is disrupting the AfD. Why, because he's disagreeing with you? I disagree with you, too... am I disrupting the AfD? If so, I am very sorry, I didn't know I was violating WP:BLAH, WP:SH!T, or any other stupid acronymous wiki policy you happen to pull out of yer arse. :P Seriously, though, it's obvious from the valid arguments presented above that the article can be kept, so please... stop disrupting the AfD. (Doesn't feel good, does it?) --From Andoria with Love 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are actually the worst. Josiah Rowe is at least trying to follow policy. The way you have been presenting you argument it seems you would like to completely disregard policy and do whatever you want. You're trying to use WP:IAR as a free pass without knowing it, but WP:IAR is not a free pass. Josiah Rowe's arguments have been valid, but not sound. Your arguments have not been valid. For an argument to be valid, it needs proper logical form. To be sound all parts of the valid argument must be true. To properly contribute to a discussion you must use sound arguments. You are at the point in your Wikipedia career where you should start familiarizing yourself with policies and guidelines, especially if you wish to participate in discussions rather than just Wikignoming. Just so you know, I don't care if you think I'm a jerk. You are free to think that. But don't think you can use that to nullify what I've said. Jay32183 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect I suspect it might be possible for this article, and many others like it, to one day stand alone. Ethan Phillips's reaction, while just a sentence, gives me the impression that this was more than the average episode, and that there might be additional real-world information to be found. Right now, however, that's just my speculation, and unless we can actually find that additional content, just merge or redirect until then. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should also look at how we organize articles. Another way to look at this is, we might have notable information, and there's more than one place to put that info. We also have character articles and such where much of this information could live. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. May I enter that I am not a Star Trek fan, I've seen about half an episode and it wasn't this one. I know little of Star Trek except for what I've learnt through popular culture, which reflects Star Trek in most mediums. How many Family Guy, Simpsons or South Park have used our shared culture of television, Star Trek foremost among them for gags... how many episodes of Star Trek, like X-Files after it and Buffy have become cultural artifacts of an era like any book or film? Certainly, the article should be improved as should any other, but notability of an individual episode of a culturally noteworthy show is as great as it needs to be to survive. And I don't like Star Trek. I kind of hate it. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is referenced, and gives commentary, which is far more than a simple plot summary. Voyager was a popular show, so each episode is notable.(Black Dalek 09:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Third arbitary section break[edit]

• Keep for now, from a high profile series (even if I hate it) so episode is notable. Without wanting to be deluged by loads of acronym links leading to convoluted policy (if you want to cite policy in response to this, please either pull out the relevant quotes or summarise it), opinions presented as law and everything else, I'm not sure it's a terribly good idea to decide the big questions of episode notability on a one by one basis. The result could be series where some episodes have articles and others don't purely because of whether or not AfDs have run and how the debate has gone (and yes I am aware of that citing the existance of other stuff isn't the best form in deletion debates but this isn't really an "other crap exists" as "this ain't going to solve it) which isn't the best for the encyclopedia overall. Timrollpickering 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Being from a high profile series doesn't mean anything in determining inclusion for Wikipedia. Jay32183 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Le sigh. I give up. I've already presented my case and can only use so much sarcasm to prove my point. I have now been accused of gnoming trolling, so I will stop now. But some people here take their time on this site way to seriously and far too literally. I can understand building this encyclopedia being important, but have a little fun in your work and don't live so much by the rules that they blind you to the facts and hinder your intelligence. I know this isn't a majority vote but rather a consensus (as it should be), but hopefully the administrator who makes the final decision will use a little more common sense than has been shown from the people hoping to have this page deleted. It's a valid article and valid and sound arguments have been made to keep it, but some appear to want to ignore them in a desperate bid to get this thing turfed. If this does get deleted, though, don't forget to nominate the 28,247 other episode pages of various series currently up at Wikipedia, including the 704 Star Trek episode pages. Honestly, if you didn't want pages for individual episodes, ya'll should have thought about that back when people started creating them. Anyway, have fun, live long and prosper, and all that jazz. And don't bother replying to this because I won't bother to check back. Seacrest, out. --From Andoria with Love 18:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Due to the amount of references, not just a plot summary anymore. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A lot of work has been done to bring this article up to "standard". Can we bury this argument now? Astronaut 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we now going to go through the same argument for every episode for every show? - The "deletionists" wanting to delete them all ASAP, while the "inclusionists" hurriedly update under-threat episodes to make them more notable. Astronaut 01:46, 1 August 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.