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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Stink (Gilmore Girls)[edit]

The Great Stink (Gilmore Girls) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A long, rambling play-by-play of the minutae of an episode of a television show, riddled with gramatical errors and misspellings, which would require a complete re-write to be useful. I cannot imagine a reasonable person expecting this kind of poorly written quasi-stream-of-consiousness drivel to have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia, and strongly believe that this kind of "article" reflects poorly upon Wikipedia. Salad Days 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete without prejudice towards recreation. I'm generally in favor of episode articles, but this needs enough cleanup that deleting it and starting over is probably best. BryanG^(talk) 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Just stub the thing for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Gilmore Girls episodes per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which states "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." (Emphasis mine.) Fully agree with the "poorly written quasi-stream-of-consiousness drivel" assessment. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and cleanup. (and as such I'm taking a quick look at it now to see what I can do to improve it before going ot bed) Mathmo ^Talk 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 16:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per previous AfD. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The related AfD's result was delete[1], not keep. Salad Days 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls) and WP:EPISODE. - Peregrine Fisher 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Peregrine Fisher mentioned, the existence of these articles has already been debated, with a consensus of Keep. However, I do agree that the rambling "plot summary" nature of the article needs to be pared down. It should be condensed down to 500-1000 words, and more attention should be made to the non-plot elements of the episode, than just the storyline. --Elonka 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vote keep, as all it needs is some expanding. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 20:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. However, if this article is going to be kept, it needs contraction, not expansion. --Metropolitan90 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but stubbify quickly - I am not generally in favor of episode articles but I won't fight their spread. However, someone who has seen this episode should delete this text and write a 2-sentence plot summary asap. The text as is won't even help anyone cut it down, it's simply too sprawling.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but simplify. AFD is supposed to be a place to discuss articles that due to their subject matter are believed inappropriate for Wikipedia; I think it's been pretty well established that articles on episodes of major TV series are appropriate given past AFDs and WP:EPISODE. Improving content is another matter. 23skidoo 06:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is reducing to a couple of sentences what we want to do with these overly long plots? It makes sense to me, and it's doable, maybe. - Peregrine Fisher 07:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ((cleanup)) is required, however. — CJewell (talk to me) 18:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please candidate is for cleaining up but not erasure yuckfoo 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Delete per WP:NOT, WP:EPISODE, WP:WAF and WP:FICTION. They're all quite clear on this, can't see any rationale for keeping this as a separate article in a simplified form. Out of universe aspects would establish a rationale. Hiding Talk 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current content as a copyright violation. Plots themselves are copyrighted. Pages which are mere plot summaries violate fair use. Redirect the page to the parent show per WP:EPISODE until and unless someone finds enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have removed the plot summary from the page per copyright rules. It is still visible in the page history pending conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk)
• Keep per past precedent of keeping GG episode articles. I have no idea how to get individual episode articles beyond the level of crap and/or stub, but previous discussions indicate it is possible. Subject passes WP:N criteria (reviews, etc). --- RockMFR 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you know of any reviews of this episode, please point them out. But if you mean reviews of the series, those wouldn't help here. This article isn't about the series. Pan Dan 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasoning of Extraordinary Machine and Hiding. WP:NOT is policy. The article violates that policy. And there is no sign that there are any reliable, independent sources that we could use to add "real-world context and sourced analysis" to the article as required by WP:NOT. No need to redirect (unlikely search term) or merge (what information is there to merge?). Responding to folks above who cite "precedent" as a reason for keeping: Wikipedia is not a court. Each subject is treated individually, on its own merits, i.e. are there enough reliable sources independent of the subject to write an article. Even WP:AFDP emphasizes that "This page is not policy." If people find arguments made at past AfD's convincing and relevant to this AfD, then repeat those arguments. But outcomes of past AfD's have nothing to do with this one. Anyway, precedent is not uniform on episode articles, see this (cited by Salad Days) or this. Pan Dan 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and restore the plot summary. Deletionist extremism and misinterpretation of policy have been at work here. Everyking 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to expand? I'd appreciate an explanation of how you believe policy is misinterpreted. I don't think accusations of deletionist extremism help anyone, either, really. Hiding Talk 11:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With the plot summary it's a violation of Wikipedia policy and possibly U.S. law. Without the plot summary (i.e. as of this writing) it's completely devoid of information. If anyone rewrites the article to describe the episode from an out-of-universe perspective without a detailed plot summary, drop me a line and I'll take a second look. —Angr 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for flagrant violation of WP:NOT, no valid reason to keep has been presented (note: WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep). "Keep and cleanup" is not a valid recommendation - I believe you mean "Delete unless cleaned up". To the people who seem to think this is a discussion on whether the subject merits and article, may I refer them to the title of this process, which is Articles for deletion, not Subjects for deletion. Chris cheese whine 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one small step for deletion, one giant leap for improvement. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability isn't the relevant criteria for episode articles. This one fails NOT and EPISODE in that it is an overly long and detailed plot summary with nothing else. I'd support keeping it if it had some analysis or other real world context, but as nothing but a plot summary, it's not encyclopedic and a potential copyright issue. I'd have no objection to merging a much shorter summary into an episode list, and I'd reconsider my vote if this article was improved to address these issues. "Per previous AFD/precedent" isn't a valid argument as wikipedia doesn't operate on precedent - consensus to keep some episode articles doesn't imply that there's consensus to keep all of them. Nor does policy say that all episode articles are inherently worth keeping - it says they should only exist if there's good reason, specifically that they are needed because there's sufficient info beyond the plot summary that it would be too much for an article on the season or the show. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:27, 8 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.