Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pure Pwnage episodes (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pure Pwnage episodes

First of all, let it be understood that I am not questioning the notability or impact of this series. Second, this page cites absolutely no sources, is filled to the brim with fancruft, and is overall non-encyclopedic. The lead reads like a promotion, quoted here for illustration: "All the episodes are available for download in DivX-encoded AVI format and now also in Mac/iPod and PSP MP4 format from the Pure Pwnage website, HTTP mirrors, via BitTorrent, or via Xfire." The "Easter Eggs" and "Continuity errors" sections are entirely original research.

I do not question that the series itself deserves an article, but notability is not necessarily qualified by association. In this project we must limit ourselves to reliable sources (secondary and tertiary wherever possible), and the type of content summarized here is unlikely to ever show up on such sources. Frankly, this page is simply an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and is better suited for fansites, forums, or Wikia. ←Spidern → 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 17:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of reliable third-party sources. The series meets our sourcing standards in WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:N, but the episodes don't. Not singularly, and not in aggregate. Randomran (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the series is notable either. I agree with the nominator about this article and why it should be deleted. TJ Spyke 19:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Violates WP:V and WP:OR and would need a fundamental rewrite to meet the policies/guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. There does seem to be a little bit of info out there. [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a small list on main, cut the OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge. The later episodes have way to much detail in their plot summaries which should go. The non-episode-list related content should also probably go. But the episode list should be present in the main article. JulesH (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonable breakout article. Needs serious help however (as does parent article). No serious objection to a merge. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This sort of article should be encouraged. The question of whether to split an article is an editing question, and it's clearer if a list of episodes is generally split out, if there is more than just a very few of them. there is no requirement that a list of episodes have 3rd party sources for straightforward descriptive content. If it needs editing, that is no reason for deletion. The question of how much detail should be in the description of an individual episode is not for AfD. DGG (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely what type of writing should be encouraged? I can perhaps understand (but not enitrely agree with) the argument that the episode summaries are descriptive content. But the "Easter eggs" and "Continuity errors" sections are subjective interpretations, otherwise known as original research. Even in the actual episode descriptions, I think that many cases border on original research (in addition to some in-universe problems). Here are some random excerpts (all of which are unsourced):
  - In a narrow hallway with numerous identical doors, possibly a reference to The Matrix, the two government agents unlock a weapon—the Menacer—to give to Doug, claiming that he has the power to prevent the war Teh_Masterer is preparing the Gamer Army for.
  - Also revealed was the credits for Pure Pwnage, the first time the cast was credited for being in the show. A surprise to many because many thought Pure Pwnage was real and not scripted.
  - At the end, the Pure Pwnage friends innocently hold a barbecue, and all seems well.
  - A parody of Kill Bill ensues and the episode reaches its climax with an epic micro battle.
  - Users had the opportunity to pay US$2.99 to see the episode 2 days early via streaming video. (June 19, 2006 at 5 p.m. EDT)
  - As the two reach safety and look back, a micro battle ensues.
  - However, Jeremy was hit by a micro blast from The Big Bad and is carried out by Dave.
  - Jeremy goes ballistic and calls her a slut. This infuriates Anastasia; Terence asks the two to calm down and talk about the conflict tomorrow.
  - The list contains the following: 1. MEET MIYAM0T0, 2. MAKE LIEK $50000, 3. BY C&C FRUM EA N GIV 2 BLIZZ, 4. VASECT0MY, 5. LRN 2 B > TEH_MASTERER @ GAMES, 6. M0VE 2 K0RIA, 7. LIV IN TUBE. Kyle wonders how Jeremy is going to do this especially at Jeremy getting a vasectomy.
  - The movie concludes by displaying the Pure Pwnage logo while a voice over states, "If you really want to pwn noobs, watch Pure Pwnage, coming soon." This featurette can no longer be found on the Pure Pwnage website. It can be downloaded here (FTP Link).
- ←Spidern → 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. WP:PRESERVE states: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (options)", No attempt to preserve this article before the AfD was attempted. WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Spidern and nominator are complaining about the content of this article, which can be improved outside of this AfD, instead of cleaning up the article themselves. Ikip (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's with regard to editing articles themselves, no? If the charge is "no sources exist", then all the nom would have to have done is search for sources.bridies (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the information which you seek to preserve is unencyclopedic to begin with. The bulk of the article is subjective interpretation, and there is thus no real value in preserving it. Remember that we are building an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate hub of information. If it can not be independently verified by an authoritative source, then nothing of value is lost. ←Spidern → 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and possibly merge to Pure Pwnage. That there is original research in the article is not a reason to delete it, unless everything in it is unverifiable original research. At least some of the information is descriptive content which is verifiable to the primary sources; of course any of the analytical content needs sources or should be removed. If it turns out there is no reliable sources for any of the not-purely-descriptive content, then trimming out that content and merging to the main show article might be appropriate. But outright deletion without any real attempts to clean up the article, where at least some of the content is certainly verifiable, is not the way to do it. DHowell (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2009 (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.