Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Mirror Image

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 or at least, there's clearly no consensus to delete all of these. W.marsh 16:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Mirror Image

I've packaged in all the articles in the sixth season of Scrubs except for My Musical. Wikipedia:Notability states that articles should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." These episodes haven't received much, or in most cases nearly any, coverage from secondary sources and consist of plot summaries, trivia, songs used, and other primary information. 17Drew 03:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. They just need more sources. Like any other TV show or movie, primary information is going to dominate the article, as it should. In this case, it's Scrubs which I don't even need Google to know it's notable. And may I ask, why just season 6? All the other seasons still have their episodes. - Rocket000 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scrubs is notable, but individual episodes are not since notability is not inherited and there is not out-of-universe information from secondary sources. I only nominated season 6 since nominating every (or nearly every) Scrubs episode would be rejected since there would be too many articles for people to have the chance to evaluate each one's notability. 17Drew 03:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't cite "essays" to argue your case, since consensus has not been previously established. Second, I meant because of the notability of Scrubs I don't have to use Google to know there's information out there on each episode, not the show itself. Actually, nevermind, I'll just point you to WP:IMRIGHTPOLICY ...once I write it. -Rocket000 04:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this then: The fact that the show is notable and has received coverage by secondary sources does not mean that each individual episode has received coverage by secondary sources. Referring to the essay is a quicker and less patronizing way of saying the same thing, where as referring to WP:IMRIGHTPOLICY (which would be an essay, not a policy) could easily be rebutted since there's no reasoning behind it. If you are aware of significant coverage by secondary sources, please provide it. From what I see, almost all of the information out there is from unreliable sources, and there's not enough information to provide an encyclopedic article with out-of-universe information from independent sources. 17Drew 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I just searched for an episode at random - My Turf War - on Goggle yielding independent information (which simply confirmed stuff already in the articles) in addition to reviews/commentary, which I added a few links to the bottom of the page. Honestly, I don't watch the show and have little interest in expanding the articles, so the burden of proof shouldn't be on me, even though that's what happen in a situation like this. If we had some really dedicated fans trying to keep these articles, significant references would be provided, and they would be kept. It all comes down to timing - when an article is nominated and who is reading/responding the nomination at the time. That's why things are nominated over and over again until the desired result is obtained. POV deletionism. Another thing, this season comes out next month on DVD[1], which will generate a lot more secondary source coverage. - Rocket000 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the sources Rocket provided i was able to start a critical reception passage on My Turf War, only a paragraph, but thats all i have time to do tonight. However, just from a quick google source, Rocket has instantly removed the main source of your complaint, Real-world info does exist, it just isn't on the articles yet. Be patient, remember that wikipedia has no deadline, and is not Paper, and you'll get your sources--Jac16888 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two links were added. Two sources cannot sustain a whole article. Especially considering TV Squad is not a reliable source. It's published by Weblogs, Inc. and has little to no editorial oversight, essentially amounting to an organized blog. 17Drew 18:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why i said it was a start, How many links do you want?. TV Squad has its own article, and its writers are "expert bloggers" basically another way of calling them reviewers. You want real world sources, and some have been added, and more will be--Jac16888 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "expert bloggers" are "expert bloggers", meaning that the site doesn't have much editorial oversight and shouldn't be considered a reliable source. There should be enough sources to establish the article's notability and that the articles don't fail WP:NOT#PLOT. 17Drew 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They don't need "more" references - they need "some" references. Without secondary sources, each episode must go. And primary sources should not dominate articles - television shows are not exceptions to Wikipedia requirements. Plot summaries do not make encyclopedic entries. MarkBul 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but why delete these, I think they're at least a start. Why have someone re-do what's already there? I always hated do the summary part anyway. With these in place, it'll be much easier to make worthy article. By the wording of your first sentence, you make it sound like there are no sources. No, they need more/other/different/additional references. Anyway, with all the books out there on TV show seasons, I know there are plenty to choose from. Or just pick up a Entertainment Weekly or a TV Guide. By the way, I meant primary information should dominate not primary sources. When you go to a article about a movie, your gonna want to know what it's about, who's in it, what's it rated, when it came out, what songs are in it, etc. That's primary information. Things obtain directly from the source. It should be dominate. I mean reviews are important, but, since those are POV, not so much in a encyclopedia. Facts are better. - Rocket000 05:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am tired of seeing things like episodes of notable TV shows and albums by notable artists WP:LAWYERed into deletion based on WP:NOTINHERITED. A description of each episode of a wildly popular TV show is inherently encyclopedic, but would be way too long to merge into the parent article, so it makes sense to split them off from the parent article. Demanding multiple independent source coverage for every episode does nothing but remove relevant, encyclopedic content and make this website less worthwhile for people seeking information about the show. Some of us are trying to write an encyclopedia, here. Chubbles 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with subjects needing coverage by secondary sources, discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Notability. But the fact that you disagree with a pretty fundamental guideline doesn't mean that there isn't consensus behind it and that it shouldn't be followed. 17Drew 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are adhering to the letter of the policy while violating its spirit. The notability of Scrubs is unquestionable; the content of its episodes is the only reason it has an article, because if it did not have episodes, it would not be a TV show, no one would watch it and no one would write about it in reliable sources. The content of the episodes is encyclopedic. If you have a better suggestion for where this content belongs on Wikipedia, I'll hear it, but "in the circular file" is a foolish answer. Chubbles 07:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#PLOT unequivocally states that articles about fiction require out-of-universe information from secondary sources, in both letter and spirit. It also states that it applies to series and stand-alone works. An appropriate level of detail is already present in List of Scrubs episodes. 17Drew 07:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Scrubs isn't Doctor Who but it's a notable TV programme and there is enough useful information about each show to warrant an individual article. How would wikipedia be improved by removing these pages? Nick mallory 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be improved because it prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. TV episodes should not have articles unless they have out-of-universe information from secondary sources. 17Drew 07:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —17Drew 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Guys, this unquestionably violates WP:EPISODE (and yes, that's a consensus-approved policy). Read it, this is precisely the sort of thing it was written for. This is not WikiLawyering, it's called enforcing consensus, which is sort of what this place is supposed to run on. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 08:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - the deletion proposal itself violates WP:EPISODE, which is quite specific about promoting merges and discouraging deletion. Furthermore, there are numerous additional sources available for most if not all of the episodes, including independent reviews from notable secondary sources, and cast and crew commentaries. "Needing improvement" is not grounds for deletion. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - further to my note above, WP:EPISODE specifically states:

"Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research."

This is clearly not the case with these articles. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you've said amounts to a speedy keep. Regardless, nobody has shown yet that "there are numerous additional sources", and it's hard to argue that cast/crew commentaries being published by ABC would be independent sources. WP:EPISODE suggests merging and redirecting before AfD. List of Scrubs episodes already has brief plot summaries, so I AfDed the articles since it seems unlikely that there are many people searching for a TV episode titled My Coffee, though I wouldn't oppose redirecting. 17Drew 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about his, episode My Fifteen Seconds, a mid-season article of little importance compared to other episodes. Do a little rummaging, and oh wait, whats this [2]? Why its an article from a Nursing organisation, critising scrubs for portraying Nurses wrongly. Hmm, that sounds like an independent, 3rd party source providing critcism. Hows that?--Jac16888 10:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to 17Drew's comment above about no one searching for the episodes, I actually have been. I've been looking at each episode page lately and I've been glad they were there finding them quite useful with all the information they contained. DeathJake34 7:48, September 28, 2007 (EST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.224.111 (talk)

See this is exactly what i mean, just a random person, not a regular editor, with 1 edit not including this one. Usually, this would make his !vote pointless, but here, its arguably the most valid argument? It shows that at least one person tonight has gone on one of these episode articles, not to edit, not because its on their watchlist, but because they actually want to read it. Remember, there are more readers than there are editors, and how do you think all these people would react if they came one day, and the info wasn't here. Do you think they'd say "oh well, it didn't meet WP:Episode and broke WP:NOT#Plot" I very much doubt it.--Jac16888 01:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was stating that since it's unlikely that people will search for individual articles, I nominated them for deletion rather than redirecting them to List of Scrubs episodes. Most of what I've said still holds, and a comment like this doesn't affect whether or not the articles should exist, only if there should be redirects in their places. 17Drew 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles. --Itub 09:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this nomination reeks of someone trying to WP:Point, and notability can be established, see My Musical, well on its way to be a FAC, and it won't be the last. Also Keep per Ckatz's quote from WP:EPISODE, actually telling you not to do this. Finally, Keep because, even if you do delete all these, it won't last, because these episode articles are essentially why thousands of people come to wikipedia, to read the episode articles for all the hundreds of tv shows that have articles. You've got a problem Drew, you're looking at this the complete wrong way, as an editor trying to follow policy(far too rigidly by the way). What you need to do is try and put yourselves in the shoes of a reader, remember there are far more people who come here purely to read articles than there are who edit. What do you think a person who misses an episode of a program and comes on here to find out what happened wants? a brief entry in a list, or a detailed plot summary with some other bits of info thrown in. And yes you can say something "they can go to another wiki", but they wouldn't. They would(and do, in July the scrubs article was the 40th most viewed article on the whole of wikipedia, [3]) and if they found no entry, that could put them off wikipedia, which is nothing without editors. Why do you think trivia sections are so common on episode articles, its because people, ordinary non-wikipedian people watch the show, notice something they think is amusing and decide to add it to an article. I know because thats how i became a regular editor, a plot summary wasn't long enough, so i added to it. I bet there are many, many other editors who started out this way. Lets say for a second you did delete all these articles, how long do you think it will be before someone signs up and makes a new one? If you want an example of this, look at The Todd's article. A while ago, the list of his "high-fives" had gotten too big so it was removed, it was unencylopedic anyway. But practically everyday, someone adds another one to the short paragraph making it bigger and bigger, till eventually we will have to remove in again. You need to stop thinking like an Editor, and try thinking like a reader. Sorry for the long rant--Jac16888 10:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, what made you choose Scrubs? It wouldn't be because you though you could get these deleted easier because its not one of the most popular shows. Why didn't you nominate the Heroes articles? Would it be because you know that there would be that much backlash against you, they'd all be speedy kept, even though those articles are even worse than the scrubs ones, with about as much "real world" details as one of Dubya's speech's--Jac16888 10:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT has nothing to do with this; WP:NOT#PLOT does. It's really quite straightforward; TV episodes that don't have significant out-of-universe information from secondary sources don't belong on Wikipedia. These aren't the first in-universe fiction articles I've nominated; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Meets Girl (redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All My Circuits (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Futurama products (2nd nomination) (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secondary characters from Futurama (delete). If people are coming to Wikipedia looking for plot summaries, that's a problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. I didn't "choose" Scrubs, by the way. I was surprised that there were article episodes for it, so I brought them here. If the Heroes ones are bad, they should be deleted or redirected too. In fact, that was going to happen but didn't because of a revamp project that doesn't appear to have done anything. 17Drew 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jac16888. Nominations like this need to stop. POV deletionism, hatred of trivia, policycruft, and applying blanket exclusion rules to things that need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis are hurting Wikipedia. Some people forget what Wikipedia really is, and would be better off working for Encyclopædia Britannica Online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Wikipedia has policies saying individual episodes aren't notable, then Wiki needs to change. Scrubs is very popular. Lots42 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There is List of Scrubs episodes which covers the matter in a quite appropriate level of detail, therefore merge is not necessary. I must note that the nominator is right citing WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:EPISODE and WP:N, and most keepers are quoting WP:NOTPOLICY, WP:PERABOVE, WP:ITSINHERITED and WP:ITSNOTABLE. We merge only when there's something to merge, and all I see are plots, plots, plots. Duja► 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Per WP:EPISODE. These clearly do not meet that guideline. - Rjd0060 14:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the nomination, fails the WP:EPISODE guidelines. Burntsauce 17:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once again, WP:EPISODE does not endorse deleting these articles. They are not "unverifiable" and they are not "original research", which are the only cases where the guideline even mentions AfD. In fact, these episodes quite specifically meet many of the points in the guideline that would suggest keeping the articles. There are qualified independent reviews available (not fan sites, but reliable sources such as IGN), and the episode commentaries do count as valid sources. Add even the few items other editors have found from quick searches, and WP:EPISODE dictates keeping and expanding the articles. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All You naughty boys didn't tell me there was already a List page of all these episodes. MarkBul 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to WP:EPISODE telling you specifically not to. No prejudice against a merge, however. Will ^(talk) 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason doesn't support speedy keeping at all. I also don't see what there is to merge. List of Scrubs episodes already has brief plot summaries. Since WP:EPISODE's first suggestion for problem articles is to merge the episode articles, the next logical step is to finish the merge and get rid of the original article pages. 17Drew 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think you've misunderstood part of the WP:EPISODE process. It specifically does not include deleting pages after a merge; if an article is merged, the page is redirected, so that the content remains accessible. It is never deleted, except possibly for cases I've mentioned earlier. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the information becomes unavailable to the average reader. So how then does this support your !vote to speedy keep everything? 17Drew 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a vote regarding deletion. WP:EPISODE quite specifically recommends against deletion for these articles, as they are not OR or unverifiable. (In fact, given the availability of sources and the interest in improving them, the guideline recommends keeping them rather than merging.) Therefore, in this discussion, where the choice is between "delete" and "keep", it should be "keep". --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who's been involved with deletion discussions knows that keep and delete are not the only choices. And so far, it's been established that there is one reliable source (the IGN reviews) available for each article. That's hardly "significant coverage". 17Drew 05:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) It looks like Buddy TV has recaps that frequently mix in a review. TV Squad seems to have reviews for at least the later episodes. Google's free news archive has a number of reviews. Looking at "My Mirror Image," we might be able to establish notabiity for it with a Google archive search, but it would cost about six bucks. - Peregrine Fisher 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – These establish they're episodes of Scrubs, therefore they are inherently notable (you can quote your essays all you like, essays are equally opinion.) A search turned up numerous potential sources that could be used, so yea… there's no problem. Matthew 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is inherently notable', that's a pointless statement - and even if they were notable simply by virtue of existing they would still violate fundamental policies if we could not demonstrate that they have each been the subject of substantial independent coverage in reliable secondary sources (because Wikipedia is not a directory or episode guide and absolutely requires independent sources). The sooner we can get rid of the many hundreds of huge and useless articles on individual articles of programs, which really belong on fansites not an encyclopaedia, the better it will be for us. In this case we already have a list page, is there any particular reason why we need more than that? Apart from the fact that, for fans of any given show, more information is always better, especially if they were the one to glean it from their ninety-third viewing of the show? Most of the actual content appears to be written from observation of the episodes themselves, so if kept they will need very substantial rewriting to be an encyclopaedic analysis of the episode, its significance and its place in the story development - otherwise all we have is a series of massive forks of an overly bloated plot summary. Cruftbane 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Colonel Warden 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems pretty apparent to me that the body of evidence in this case certainly points to them being kept. Being as they are from a fairly popular television show, they are are notable enough to at least be merged, if not kept. There is a plethora of sources on the episodes and with enough time they could certainly be expanded to completely satisfy WP:EPISODE beyond a doubt. Eternalmonkey 22:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to re-read the discussion. There's nowhere to merge the articles since List of Scrubs episodes already contains the plot summaries. 17Drew 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems to me that most of the individual pages are more detailed than List of Scrubs episodes and that level of detail is neccessary for what the common user of wikipedia needs. The List of Scrubs Episodes summaries are not detailed or conclusive enough to be of any value. Eternalmonkey 12:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If episodes are to be deleted because notability is not inherited (so.. what? We would only have one article per TV show?) then we would have to delete just about every article about every TV show episode on Wikipedia, leaving only those especially significant ones. Nah.. keep 'em. There's nothing in WP:EPISODE that says individual episodes should not have their own articles anyway, so whoever mentioned that seems to have got the wrong end of the stick. If some articles are poorly (or not at all) referenced, then fine.. they need to be improved. But that doesn't mean they should be deleted. Otherwise you would be saying that all stubs must be referenced on creation, or not created at all! EuroSong ^talk 01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scrubs is a popular show. Whenever I see an episode coming up on TV Guide, I always come to Wikipedia and search the title so see what the episode is about and if I have seen it or not. Definitely keep these articles. 65.40.190.100 03:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)— 65.40.190.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"few or no other edits"? Exactly what makes their comment so strong a Keep !vote. Because they are a reader, not editor--Jac16888 03:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Exactly. And how do you think they found this discussion? Hint: It wasn't a random walk though AfD noms. That in itself should be best reason to keep these. Why take away information from the reader? - Rocket000 06:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? WP:NOT says what should be removed, not random readers. If people are using Wikipedia to look up plot summaries of show X, then WP:NOT#PLOT says that's not a good thing. 17Drew 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "Why take away information from the reader?" Answer: "Does it matter? policy this policy that blah blah..." I'm sorry I think your intentions are misguided. I don't mean any offense, Drew. I know you do a lot of good for Wikipedia; but in this case, either you're misapplying policy or the current policy has major flaws. Since you like policies, which is fine (especially for an admin), I suggest keeping in mind WP:IAR, following this will stop other policies from getting in the way of improving Wikipedia. Rocket000 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what improves Wikipedia is a very subjective judgment. WP:NOT#PLOT says that Wikipedia is worsened when its articles become dedicated to plot details. If you disagree with this, then the best solution is to re-evaluate if there is consensus behind it by discussing at WT:NOT, not by ignoring the policy and creating an arbitrary and subjective gap between policy and articles. 17Drew 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only a gap if you have a rigid policy, which we don't. Policies are in place to help guide us when we are unsure, not to replace common sense. Policy is not law. Policies shouldn't be used to enforce the idea that Wikipedia is a simply an encyclopedia. It's way more then that.

Yes, what improves Wikipedia is subjective. That's why we need to maintain a NPOV. The real consensus here on Wikipedia is shown though actions, not though the words of a few (even a couple thousand policy writers would not constitute as a true consensus, as it's just a relatively very small group). The majority of editors and readers are not going to go and discuss policy, but they are heard though their contributions.

The thing is, editors and readers shouldn't have to fight for what we want Wikipedia to be. It's like having a speed limit that everyone ignores and becomes upset when they get a ticket. And more and more we're forgetting we put that speed limit sign there in the first place (like in real life). We spend time arguing with the self-appointed cops instead of simply taking down the sign. And this may sound silly, but we don't want to take down the sign even though we don't like it, because we do want the reckless drivers (vandals and spammers) to get ticketed, just not ourselves.

This is no longer just about what was nominated, and I know we both agree this is not the place for this discussion, so may have the last word if you so wish. Thank you for being civil, and remember - policy-name dropping doesn't work on everyone. -Rocket000 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we're unsure when there are people stating in good faith that the articles should be kept or that the articles should be deleted/redirected. Consensus has clearly been indicated through policy discussions from a group representative of the entire community. And although it'd be nice if there wasn't conflict between editors and readers, there always will be. That's why fans of their favorite band don't want it deleted; our policies set requirements for articles that some subjects just don't meet. It'd be nice to have the information, but it goes against the principles of an encyclopedia. The only thing being nominated here are the Scrubs episodes (since there are other seasons that should likely have the same fate). This isn't some new situation; other very similar discussions have also resulted in getting rid of the articles for the average reader (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Meets Girl, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil of the Future episodes, or most of the archives at Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review). 17Drew 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this nomination was done purely because of current policy, then our policies are against the reader. Why do you think people keep making articles like these? I could put thousands of articles here if I followed your deletion criteria. You couldn't delete 'em fast enough. That shows that the current policy is not what the people want. No consensus. No policy.

...but, I don't think this is an example of policy in action. I think it's a misinterpretation. We can change the policy so this doesn't keep happening. So we don't have to keep wasting our time with this crap, and concentrate on actually make Wikipedia better. Just a thought. - Rocket000 06:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the policy says that articles shouldn't exist, the appropriate action is to discuss the policy and change it if there is consensus against it (with a few exceptions like copyright). The solution is not to create a huge gap between what policies state Wikipedia is/should be, and what Wikipedia actually is/does. 17Drew 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not against the reader, it's against people watching episodes and writing plot summaries from them. It's against all original research, in fact. This is an encyclopaedia, not an episode guide or plot summary. We can have articles on episodes if the articles discuss the cultural and historical significance of the episode, but we can't have them if they are just plot summaries, because that violates the policies cited above. Cruftbane 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I really see nothing wrong with these articles, they are fine. michfan2123 01:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With respect to the nominator, the current process of discussing merges on the talk pages seems to be going quite well, although you didn't know about the guideline before this. Although, the fact that WP:EPISODE suggests you do the merge process instead of AfD, that doesn't mean you can't. At any rate. These aren't individually notable, and shouldn't be their own articles. TV.com and IMDB are not notability qualifying sources, they even border on unreliable sources. — i ^said 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly, proponents of redirecting (through WP:EPISODE) have tried to justify the process by saying that "the information is not deleted". User:I, as a participant in the episode process, why would you endorse deletion now, instead of recommending the use of the merge process that you've just described as "going quite well"? --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We tried to justify that process saying the content wouldn't be lost. Technically speaking, that process was rejected, and the current process is not an episode-specific process, just the standard merge procedure. The new process does not preclude nominating for AfD, and certainly does not trump it. I really only support deletion because the entries at the List of Episode page aren't pitiful, and can be filled out well without being able to access the history; the main reason not losing the history was important. — i ^said 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what the policy is, I don't even really care what the policy is, all I know is I came here to read the article only to find someone wants to delete it. I don't understand how wikipedia would be a better place without this article. It would certainly be less useful to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.209.132 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete most but sort through to make sure that notable episodes that have major events in them (such as My Long Goodbye) aren't deleted without giving the episode a fighting chance. If possible, improve those notable episodes with more reliable sources, etc. --HALtalk 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To all. • Lawrence Cohen 13:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think the original nominator even read most of these articles. My House points out the many references to the television show, House. As previously pointed out, the DVD will be out soon and editors can add more then. Wikipedia should be about adding information and improving them, not deleting them just because they aren't perfect. 134.68.74.83 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There are some Die-hard Scrubs Fans out there and we just need them to step up and make sure these articles are finished. They're good starts. LuvataciousSkull 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hear ye hear ye. It is sad when the first thing I thought of as I skimmed this discussion was no less than "Damn, that's a lot of friggin policies cited." SO here is why I believe these articles should remain. Not by policy or guideline or essay, but through the idea that Wikipedia is built upon.

A man tries to build a house. He has a few of his neighbors come to help. They are working very nicely and organized-like, like you would expect from people who are trying to build a house.

Soon, a building inspector comes by. "Those stairs don't look right," the inspector says, "and by these measurements, they are not wide enough. The man replies, "They aren't finished yet." The inspector ignores him and sends someone to demolish the house.

Wikipedia, as a general rule, is a work-in-progress. Wikipedia is not published all at once. It evolves and grows. These articles are still being written, albeit slowly. Clearly, these episodes have significance, and secondary sources will soon be available to them. However, I see no reason to 'demolish the house' as it were before it is even close to being completed. Let the editors do their job. Go and add to "the sum of human knowledge", not detract from it. Thank you. ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Through reviews, audio commentaries, DVD extras... all have the potential to be sourced encyclopedic articles. At the very least, use that hashed together redirect guideline (which is often mistaken as "policy," though such mistakes a allowed to slip by...) The JPS ^{talk to me} 06:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There's no reason to believe that secondary sources have not covered every single episode of this series fairly extensively - this is a television show which airs on a major American network. Hence, by whatever guidelines are currently in vogue at the moment, this would be "notable". --- RockMFR 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Martync84 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all WiseGuyScunthorpe Perhaps some of these articles need improvement but all of these descriptions of Scrubs episodes are intrinsicly useful to Wikipedia. Also most of these people who want to delete have not read the WP:EPISODE guidelines on the subject.~ --WiseGuy 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete All — They are plot summaries of non-notable tv show episodes. It's really simple: they are not encyclopaedic. To the closing admin; quite an array of comments from redlink accounts to sort into the circular file... --Jack Merridew 11:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and redirect. This is an up and down case per the standards asserted at WP:EPISODE, as well as the requirement that individual episode articles establish real-world notability grounded in reliable third-party sources. It should be noted that almost every single keep !vote above is either an expression of fan support or else makes the fundamental error of inherited notability. Wikipedia is NOT a fansite, it is an encyclopedia with guidelines and policies which determine what content we have and how it should be contextualised. The fact that there exists already a list of episodes page with summary plot descriptions is sufficient to the requirements of encyclopedic treatment. These better belong at a Scrubs wikia. Eusebeus 16:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Wikipedia's rules hold a vote to be in much greater standing than all of the policies on its site, no matter who votes. These votes count just as much as any other; no matter what WP:AADD may say, especially since WP:AADD is not even policy and just an opinion of a few wikipedia contributors.Eternalmonkey 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this is not a vote, and some people's comments are disregarded if not based in policy. i ^said 00:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All As per reasons stated above. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:46, 6 October 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.