Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man from UNCLE: The Vulcan Affair

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. (Please don't move articles during an AfD, it makes life painful for the closing admin. Thanks.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Man from UNCLE: The Vulcan Affair

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on the pilot episode of the series The Man From U.N.C.L.E. which fails to demonstrate why this individual episode has any independent notability that would justify having an article seperate from the main series article. The article is currently unsourced, consisting mainly of just an overly detailed plot synopsis, and I can find no sources that talk about this particular episode in detail. The episode does get plenty of hits in searches, but these consist entirely of just episode listings or brief plot synopsises, and are not reliable sources that establish notability. The importance of the pilot's production in relation to the series itself is already covered at the main series page here: The_Man_From_U.N.C.L.E.#The_Pilot and a brief synopsis of the episode is already at List_of_The_Man_from_U.N.C.L.E._episodes#Season_1_.281964.E2.80.9365.29. So, to sum it up, the episode may be important to the series, and as such it has a signifigant section dedicated to it in the series' article. However, there is nothing to demonstrate it has independent notability to exist as its own article. This was a contested prod, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has a complex history, being first the pilot under the name Solo, then this episode, The Vulcan Affair, and then the theatrical release, To Trap a Spy. The nomination makes it clear that we can and do cover this history and so provides no proper reason to delete, contrary to our editing policy. The current draft seems easy to improve and it is our editing policy to do so. Warden (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the film that was created from this episode may be notable, but notability is not inherited, and as I mentioned, there are no sources to support that the episode has any independent notability outside of its connection to the film. Pretty much all the sources out there on the subject are either just brief, standard episode summaries, or mentions that To Trap a Spy was derived from its footage. Having a complex history does not automatically confer notability without the sources to demonstrate why this is notable. On another note, since the To Trap a Spy article already exists, I don't really see how having a seperate article on this episode wouldn't be superflous. Both articles would have an almost identical plot summary, an almost identical credits list, and have the same information about both of them being derived from the same footage. We would essentially have two articles with the same information, just under different names. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does or will the article say about production or reception (i.e. real-world information as per WP:WAF) that can't as well be said in the main article or the episode list? Looking at the year, I'd say pretty much nothing except plot. Because of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:AVOIDSPLIT, a redirect or deletion will do, or maybe smerge to the LoE. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Couple of Notes First, I see that Warden has been busy expanding the article and adding references. While I applaud the effort, I have to point out that many of the newly referenced sections are things that are relevent to the entire series, rather than showing any individual notability to this particular episode. IE, Sam Rolfe writing the background info for the series, Jerry Goldsmith composing, etc. These are things that are true for the series as a whole, so of course they would also be true for any episode of the series. Thus, it would be more appropriate to add this information to the series' main article rather than using it to justify having this as a seperate article, per Sgeureka's mention of WP:AVOIDSPLIT. In addition, some of the other references, while interesting, don't really do much for notabilities' sake, like the obituary giving a brief mention that someone once played a very minor bit role in the episode. Interesting factoid, yes. Notable, not so much. On another note, I don't think turning this page into a redirect would be appropriate, since the way that the article's title is structured, it makes it not a very likely search term. In fact, even if the article winds up as being kept, I would still suggest that the article be renamed to a more standard format. At the very least, we should make sure that "U.N.C.L.E." is written correctly in it.:) Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The personnel involved in making The Man from U.N.C.L.E. varied from episode to episode and season to season. For example, Sam Rolfe only wrote the script for this episode in the first season. And even for this particular episode, the casting varied between versions - the transition from Will Kuluva to Leo G. Carroll, for example. The claim that all such details are unimportant or generic is therefore false. Warden (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for Sam Rolfe, I specifically mentioned that him being the creator of the series' background information is what was true for the whole series, not him writing this episode. But more importantly, all of this may be true but that doesn't make it notable. Every episode of every series is going to have a team of people in front of and behind the cameras working on it, and there's more than likely going to be sources backing this up. But there's a reason why Wikipedia doesn't have an article on every episode of every TV series, despite it being most likely possible to write something with backed up facts about who worked on what in each one. That is especially true for this particular episode, when it already has several other places where information like this would be appropriate, and there is a seperate article about a movie that uses almost the same cast, crew, footage, and plot. Rorshacma (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Rolfe left the show after the first season and there were subsequently five more different people in that script supervisory role. As for other articles, we have lots of them. See 1964 television episodes, for example. For consistency, I have normalised the title now it's in that category too. Warden (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that category, I'm seeing a bunch of other articles that need to be seriously looked at to see if they have any reliable sources to establish any sort of independent notability themselves... But that is neither here nor there. Thanks for doing the renaming work. I would have done it myself but I wasn't quite sure what the policy was on doing a move while an active AFD discussion was going on. Rorshacma (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1964 is nothing. See 2011 television episodes for ten times as many. That's WP:RECENTISM at work. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. was huge in its day and the idea that its first episode is not notable is just nonsense. Warden (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its the pilot episode, the one that started a notable series. It was notable enough to be made into a film. Most newspapers and magazines that far back are not archived on the internet. I find it unlikely that this didn't receive coverage back then. Dream Focus 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What going on here, clearly meets the WP:GNG, just look at the sources listed. VER Tott 10:33, 13 June 2012 (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.