Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Pilot) Fringe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was Withdrawn to replace with single article nomination as articles were merged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Pilot) Fringe

[edit]
(Pilot) Fringe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable pilot episode of a series that has only aired a single episode. Adds absolutely nothing that is not already in the main article, except an excessively long plot in violation of WP:MOSTV, excessive non-free images, and inappropriate fansite links. This article completely fails WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:N, and WP:EPISODE. The pilot has not received significant coverage apart from the series as a whole (such as it is with all of two episodes) and the main article is barely above a stub, negating claims of it being a "spin out". Attempted to just redirect back to the series article per usual method of dealing with unnotable episodes, but creator disagrees claiming its cost of creation makes it notable, and wants an full discussion before any kind of deletion (or deletion via redirect). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its an earlier article on the same topic with the same issue - it is still an unnotable episode. The ratings don't make it notable on their own. The reception info is for a new series as a whole, and could be better used to actually improve the stubby series article. This second one has an even more excessively long plot summary, totally violating WP:MOSTV, WP:WAF and WP:PLOT.:

Pilot (Fringe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment if the cost of creating the pilot makes it notable, then shouldn't the production cost be the focus of the article? Just a thought. And there are very many notable TV series whose pilot episodes receive no coverage (justifiably so) so I don't see anything really saying this one is special. MadScot (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly...considering all the viral ads announcing the series and all, it would seem to me that the production cost just speaks for the series as a whole, not just the pilot (and is there a source saying the rest of the episodes aren't being produced at the same level?). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Collectonian, you are wrong. The pilot for this series is the most expensive ever produced. Not the series, and not the viral marketing campaign - the pilot. - Hexhand (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's another article already created, Pilot (Fringe), for the first episode. As for the notability, it is one of the most talked about pilot of the season. There's significant amount of material available about its development etc. and I'm at present collecting information on this. I've already added critical and viewer reception on the article. I would suggest to combine appropriate contents of both, and redirect (Pilot) Fringe to Pilot (Fringe), considering that's the appropriate title. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good lord, that one has an even worse plot section than this one! As for the ratings and critical reception, that speaks to the series as a whole, not just the pilot, when only 2 episodes have even aired. I still see nothing there that is particularly notable at all. Its still series reviews for a single episode series (at the time), and brief at best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's perfect (neither did I write it), nor is this a peer review. Ratings and critical reception are based on the pilot, where they've tried gauge the future of the series, which is perfectly normal. You can find multiple news articles, along with numerous interviews by creators, that discuss its development. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the respective histories, you'd know. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that isn't the one I sought to revert or delete, no one ever tried to link it to the main article or it would have been at AfD already. And LeaveSleaves didn't revert or nominate anything. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably exact reason why I didn't link it. I knew people would jump the gun. Decided to wait until its presentable. LeaveSleaves (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that should have been my call as well. Trigger-happy AfDs are pretty frustrating. The articles weren't ready. Btw, I ported over some of your critical reception info into the version being nominated. It adds to the citations already n place in the article. I would be happy to welcome your assistance in developing out the article further. - Hexhand (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Meh. I agree with Collectonian that the summary is much too excessive, and should be pared down. Personally, I tend to not have as much of a problem with individual articles on pilot episodes, unless totally non-notable. In this instance, the IGN review seems to be fully about this episode, which probably qualifies it as notable. So I don't particularly have a problem with keeping this article separate from a List of Episodes page, or the show page itself. Now, there are two articles nominated for deletion here, and so obviously one should be redirected/deleted. The one in the title of this page — (Pilot) Fringe — is not compliant with the MOS, and so should be the one to go. It's not going to be searched for, and I don't see any content particularly that needs to be saved to merge, so I have no problem with its deletion instead of redirected to Pilot (Fringe). As a side note, I assume that the name of this episode was actually "Pilot"? seresin ( ¡? )  04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, the article is less than 8 hours old, and Collectonian, (blocked previously for edit-warring) apparently decided that after two reverts (four, if you count the two from the main article for Fringe and the two deleting the contents of the pilot episode article) and threatening to nominate the article for deletion instead. Well, at least he isn't edit-warring anymore. Lol.
As noted before, the article is in fact new. Perhaps I should have stuck an 'in-use' tag on the article to keep deletionists at bay, but I figured that since the series is in fact new, it wasn't really needed. Clearly, I was wrong.
The pilot episode is going to be expanded upon greatly - there's a lot of material out there discussing not just the series but notability of the pilot itself (most expensive pilot created to date, etc.), despite the claim by Collectonian that there is nothing to be had. I wasn't aware that pilot episodes required the series to be in multiple seasons for the article to be worth writing. It isn't as if no other series pilot has ever been written (Pilot (Smallville), Pilot (House) are two Featured quality articles, and I am willing to bet that there are plenty of GA level articles as well).
Collectonian is jumping the gun more than just a little; I'll save the rest of his behavior for the AN/I, which will likely have to be filed. That aside, most new articles get a little bit of a grace period before they hav eto face getting deleted, right? I mean, the article isn't about feltching or something that's a horrific BLP violation or something. The accusations seem to be as follows:
  • WP:MOSTV - to whit, the plot being too long. Er, most film articles, when first created, have an atrociously long synopsis. Its usually trimmed down in short order. Why is this less than 8-hour article get less rhythm than them? Either way, it will be trimmed down. It is a process of collective editing, right?
  • Additionally, the claim was leveled that the episode article contains "excessive" non-free images. There are two - one being the logo for the program, and the other being a promotional poster featuring a visual element utilized in the episode. As to inappropriate fansite links, if I am not mistaken, there is but one fansite link. Pilot (Smallville) (a Featured article) has more than that.
  • WP:WAF and WP:PLOT - this accusation covers a lot of territory, but I am guessing that, because the article is new, that it might not have a lot of citations as of yet, but the ones there are pretty solid. It isn't being written from an in-universe perspective. Again, a little patience wouldn't be out of order.
  • WP:N - an article about the episode is in fact notable for a few reasons - JJ Abrams is connected to it. The episode is the most expensize made for a pilot. Ever.
  • WP:EPISODE - golly, it's true; I didn't wait for the process dictated by a guideline - an article about the season. Someone else can do that. IAR rules here, as the article about the pilot episode can be written, and written well. For being less than 7 hours old, I think it's not really that bad.
I would posit that this AfD is a bit premature, and being pushed through by an editor who decided to do so when his redirects were reverted. - Hexhand (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are not replying to me, as I did not support deletion. And secondly, I would advise you to leave irrelevant comments about Collectonian out of your arguments. We are discussing the merits of this article, not Collectonian's rabid deletionism or whatever other problem you have with her. And as only one the many problems with your arguments, I'll note that one of the images lacks a fair-use rationale for this article, and the other one's is not a passable rationale. seresin ( ¡? )  04:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I wasn't replying to your post, Seresin; note that mine came after a few edit conflicts. As for my expression at Collectonian's behavior, pardon my distate at it being expressed here. This AfD exists because her redirects (deleting the article) were reverted twice. As for the images, I would welcome some assistance in making the rationale for the image I added stronger. :) - Hexhand (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter the outcome, (Pilot) Fringe is highly unlikely to be kept. Pilot (Fringe) is the better developed article, it was created nearly a week before yours, and it is properly named, unlike yours. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about quality of article but proper naming. The information can be moved either way. LeaveSleaves (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the other article had more information and was better. You copied over its information to your article. But the other was better, except for having way too long a plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, wrong, Collectonian. I copied over some of the reception information, a de facto merge, as the material already present in the article nom'd here has a better Lead, plot and cast section. In what way was it better? Might you be troubled to actually provide correct information? Should I say please? - Hexhand (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is confusing with the two names like that. :P For keeping Pilot (Fringe), why keep? Do you feel it is notable? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, kinda thought we already addressed that, Collectonian; it is notable. Can you provide us a number of the times that we should tell you this, so we can simply skip to the end of the conversation?
As per Justen's comments, I have moved the content from the (Pilot) Fringe article over to the Pilot (Fringe) article. I did title mine wrong, and the subsequent de facto merged article is better off for it. As the merge is essentially complete, might we finish this AfD? - Hexhand (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which kind of advocates a removal of the article as a stand-alone. Sorry, not an option, especially not when we already have FA examples of episodic pilot articles. Nice try, though. - Hexhand (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Where is the notability? Where are the significant sources discussing the pilot alone? No one has yet to provide any beyond what's already in the article, and that reception section is just as applicable to the main article (and has already been copied there). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider taking actual trouble of reading the reviews, at least of IGN, THR and USA Today, all three discuss pilots and plotline. In fact (and I know I'm slightly out of line to discuss this here), it'd be incorrect to put those reviews in main article considering that they are based only on initial episode and do not cover the series. LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well, it has been pointed out to Collectonian on no less than four occasions (five now) that the pilot is the most expensive pilot in history (beating out another Abrams pilot, Lost).
Anyway, the AfD for this article is relatively moot, as the content from it has already been merged to the Pilot (Fringe) article, and is actively being improved/expanded upon. The only thing remaining is Collectonian's assertion that the wiki is paper and that new pilots aren't notable. - Hexhand (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/(Pilot)_Fringe&oldid=1069612463"