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 RESULT AfD closed early because the article has already been deleted for copyright reasons. If the article is recreated with a new version that isn't a violation, it would need a new AfD listing. Milo H Minderbinder 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch (NCIS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable, possible WP:OR violation, extensive quotes may be copyright violation

No references, no notability, mostly quotes and original research. There are approximately 85 articles like this devoted to episodes of this tv show. List of NCIS episodes details them all. That article serves the required purpose, these articles are not needed.

• According to WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any edit lacking a source may be removed"
• According to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, "Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research."
• According to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, "Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use." These quotes are most of the article's content.

Several supporters of these article have argued that these guidelines don't apply, therefore AfD debate is needed. Probably all 85 articles need to be deleted (and perhaps some info merged) but I am testing the waters first. Shaundakulbara 09:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy to see what you should do before nominating an article for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability. Did you do the research to see whether any sources on these subjects exist? What did you find? Uncle G 11:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unverifiability is not specifically one of the reasons for this AfD. The reasons concern WP:R, WP:OR, and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Two editors involved with these articles have said the bullet points above do not apply here and any tags requesting that editors establish notability etc have been promptly removed. My efforts to encourage improvement have been rebuked. Not every episode of every show deserves an article, agreed? I respectfully say I am under no obligation to research and improve upon 85 articles that I don't think should have been created in the first place. Shaundakulbara 11:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On this basis, I nominate half of Wikipedia for deletion. Especially for the violation of Redirects. Lars T. 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyright violation- respectful of your suggestion I looked and found [1]. From this source, www.tv.com, this and other articles in this series have been copied word for word. Shaundakulbara 11:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case then this should probably be listed as a copyright problem rather than an afd. Even if it's decided that articles should exist, they would all have to be completely rewritten from scratch. Jay32183 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's an episode of a TV show. The show is running with good ratings. How the hell does it lack notability? And how the hell do the quotes both prove OR and copyright violation? Could you make up your mind? Lars T. 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please be stay cool and be civil. Comment on content, not on contributors. As it turns out these articles are cut-and-paste copyright vios, the discussion has changed anyway. Thank you. Shaundakulbara 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Notable television series, episode is inheritly notable. Consensus is episode articles are perfectly legitimate, nominator has been disruptive with canvassing, etc. I'd like to point out the discussion page the nominator quotes also states "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)" – nor does it appear to be (completely) non-sourced, an episode articles is the source, the primary source, although yes, it does require secondary sources, that is, of course, not a valid criterion for deletion. Addendum: nominator states "Several supporters of these article have argued that these guidelines don't apply" - this is actually an argument ad ignorantium, no one has suggested they do not apply, just that you are not totally interpreting them correctly. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is an article on a TV series episode and it has already been estatblished that individual episodes of notable TV series are admissable. Any content issues can be resolved without deleting the whole article (i.e. if there are too many quotes or copyvio material, then delete this material and replace it with new, original text). The nominator will find that there are far more than 85 articles -- not to mention a Wikiproject -- that would have to be nominated for deletion of one feels episode articles are improper for Wikipedia. In which case, a better plan would be to lobby for a policy change, though I think WP:SNOW would apply. 23skidoo 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — It's a TV episode like many others. The "List of..." article couldn't have more than a short paragraph on each without being absurdly long. What's the original research involved? The Quotes section does run on some. —wwoods 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge and redirect to the parent article. Per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, articles for individual episodes should not be created until there is enough independently published, verifiable information on which to base the article. The current contents of the page are a short plot summary and a series of quotes which are 1) excessive, 2) inappropriate (per above) and 3) probably violate fair use. No sources (other than the primary source of the show itself) have been offered either in the article or here. We may use the primary source as support but it can never be the sole basis of an article. Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: On investigation, it appears that this entire article is a copyvio of [2]. I have replaced the copyvio content with the standard copyvio warning. Users may still see the disputed content in the page history pending conclusion of this debate. Rossami (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyright violation As noted above, article appears to have been a cut-and-paste copyright violation. I'll reconsider if a new article is written about this episode, keeping in mind that WP:NOT specifies that plot summaries should include "real world context or analysis" and not simply list plot details. Dugwiki 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge and redirect. Episode is not notable enough to warrant an article. Salad Days 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete plot summaries are not sufficient articles.-MsHyde 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: why do we still pretend to have a discussion after the article has been deleted? Lars T. 09:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, I've never seen NCIS but I'll rewrite the article with a non-copyvio :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:32, 7 February 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.