Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House)

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Paternity (House)

Paternity (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I started a discussion for these episodes now a week ago at the seasonal talk page, not unusual for these type of redirect discussions. It went unanswered, so I executed the redirects three days ago, which just today were met with opposition. So I reverted my redirects and came here. I was also informed about a previous AfD for articles of season 2. I'm taking the first season first, taking the outcome of it to proceed the AfD for the rest of the shows' articles.

The episode contains only plot, no real world information and therefor fails WP:PLOT, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:EPISODE. The same information, the plot, is already present on the seasonal article although in a shortened version. A popular reason for opposition is that these types of articles can be expanded, sure they can, but no-one has even attempted in the five years this article has existed. Additionally, any potential info could just as easily be added to the season article first, which could use it just as much as this article and later forked of into a separate article.

For the record, I prefer a redirect to be left in place after the deletion, to preserve possible redirects and keep search access.

I'm also nominating the rest of the episodes of season one, the same arguments apply:

• Occam's Razor (House)
• Maternity (House)
• Damned If You Do
• The Socratic Method (House)
• Fidelity (House)
• Poison (House)
• DNR (House)
• Histories (House) – has some music trivia
• Detox (House) – has some award info which was added to reception section on House (season 1)
• Sports Medicine (House)
• Cursed (House)
• Control (House) – has some music and series continuity trivia
• Mob Rules (House)
• Heavy (House) – has some music trivia
• Role Model (House) – has an unsourced and trivial medical errors section
• Babies & Bathwater – has some music trivia
• Kids (House)
• Love Hurts (House) – has some music trivia
• Honeymoon (House)

The newest of these has existed since December 2006, and has since then contained nothing more than plot, some a bit trivia, an infobox and external links. The one piece of interesting information has already been placed on the season page. From all 20 articles, only two have a references, three sources in total. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Motion to Extend Scope

Please state your opinion on this motion.

• Motion to make this AfD about all 7 seasons' episodes rather than just the season one episodes. If this isn't really the way to do it then blame my general lack of participation in AfD for my doing this wrong. I don't want to see an AfD started 3 days from now for season 2 and then one late next week for season 3 articles. Theoretically the AfDs could run about 2 months in total and each season end up with a different outcome. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• I support this motion Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support: makes sense. --rpeh •T•C•E• 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We would have to add AFD tags to every one of those articles and then take them all off again when the proposal to delete them all fails, as it obviously would. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Go for it. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• If people want to do this, then I am going to propose the same challenge that occurred when many South Park episodes were questioned in terms of notability - someone uninvolved should select 4 random episodes from the show's entire and challenge those that want to keep all of the articles, they should show that these are sufficiently notable (in that there is at least development/filming discussion, ratings, and reception). The four articles don't have to be perfect after this experiment, only that clearly given a focused effort they can be made notable. With that, it then can be assumed all House episodes are notable. If this can't be done, then every episode needs to be handled on a case by case basis, outside of the AFD process. This worked well for SP (they showed it possible), and I can't see why it can't work here. But it is a non-standard AFD approach so there should be a more central page for that. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Also, Masem's idea above sounds good too. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose expansion. Masem's idea has merit, but the whole idea of deleting a whole bunch of articles without anyone bothering to attempt WP:BEFORE is a non-starter. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• For the record, that would an additional (if didn't make any mistakes) 112 articles. Basically all of them except: Pilot (House), Three Stories, Ugly (House), No More Mr. Nice Guy (House), Living the Dream (House), House's Head, Here Kitty, Simple Explanation, Broken (House), 5 to 9, The Choice (House), Baggage (House), Help Me (House). Some of these are borderline, but they have at least the (extremely) bare minimum. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. Makes sense. Eusebeus (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actual Discussion

• Keep All: The arguments for retention made in the previous AfD (that took place less than 5 months ago, and of which I wasn't previously aware) are still valid. I also can't see how deleting these articles would do anything to improve Wikipedia. When I asked Xeworlebi, he simply pointed me to various policies, but that doesn't answer the question. I agree that the articles are not great at the moment, but believe that even in their present condition, they're better than the proposed redirects. Instead of the deletionist method of pointing to WP:EPISODE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PLOT as if that provides some kind of inescapable logical conclusion, I'd point to WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. It doesn't make sense to claim that some episodes of a series are notable and others aren't based solely on what's been added to an article so far. --rpeh •T•C•E• 14:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Again, these articles don't warrant there own article not because of the content but because of the articles. They are essentially bloated forks from the season article, and contain nothing more than just the plot again, but longer. And that is in clear violation with WP:PLOT. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, you've ignored everything I said. WP:GETOVERIT. --rpeh •T•C•E• 17:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the shoe's on the other foot. A rationale was given based on policy, and the last sentence of your first comment shows that you didn't really get the rationale. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep all for the reasons mentioned in the past AFD back in October. Suggest nominator read the overwhelming keep consensus there, and withdraw the nomination, so we don't have to go through this again. Dream Focus 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The initial AfD was 9/7 for delete, and a re-listing got a majority of keep support, all of which ignored WP:PLOT, and base there reasoning on "it can be expanded" half a year later, and 5 years in the article's existence, that still hasn't happened. The ability to expand an article is not reason to create a premature fork. So no, I will not withdraw this nomination. And I hope people consider the actual policies. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• These are not premature forks - they were created years before the season article existed. It is the latter which needs to justify its existence as it is redundant to the main House article and these detailed episode articles. Most of its content is synopses of the episode plots — the exact same content that you are complaining about here — and there is very little coverage of the season qua season - as a distinct work of art rather than an artifact of the broadcasting timetable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The season articles were created because of WP:SIZE concerns of List of House episodes, which existed before the articles. The main article does not contain that info. The episode list did contain summaries then. The episode articles contain nothing that the episode list does not, but trivia, which shouldn't even be in the articles. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• This confirms that it is the season articles which are the most recent forks. The list provides a good index for the whole and the separate season lists are redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now you're just talking nonsense, WP:SIZE is a valid reason for splitting articles, doing the exact opposite of WP:PLOT obviously isn't. There is a huge difference between a subject that only has a plot and creating one for every part of it. It's like creating an article for every chapter of a book. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Each House episode is a complete story because the primary plot element - the medical mystery - is resolved. The show is explicitly based upon Sherlock Holmes which also appeared mainly in short story format. A short story such as The Adventure of the Speckled Band appeared originally in The Strand Magazine. Organising such material by season is like organising our coverage of Sherlock Holmes by volume of the magazine. It is seasonal coverage which is nonsensical because the season is an artifact of the first broadcasts which is irrelevant to the lasting significance of the works which is their fictional content, not their publishing schedule. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion — perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging..". Also, the nomination tells us that there has been some merger of content and so these articles should be retained for their edit history as attribution. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete all - Not even worth a redirect. what is being passed for "notable second party sources" are external links to imdb, House wikis, "official guide to house" on google ebooks, and so on. The keepers need to give a reason as to why WP:EPISODES "occasional exception" clause is merited here. I will also note that Warden's speedy keep is now specifically invalidated by the ...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted part of SK #1, as I have now weighed in with a delete. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:EPISODES is a style guideline not a content guideline and so irrelevant to the question of deletion. The sourcing is easily improved by reference to sources such as this. As the nomination was improper and your objections are not based upon policy, we might expect a speedy close per WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The reference you placed on the article is entirely unnecessary per primary source, and does not improve the article in any way. The fact that an article can be improved is not a reason to keep it. These articles are not stubs they are unwarranted forks from the season page. WP:EPISODE has a guideline on how to deal with this types of articles. On the other hand WP:PLOT is a policy and clearly states that Wikipedia is not a collection of plot-only description of fictional works, which these articles are. Also WP:SNOW is not a policy nor even a guideline, it's an essay, it even says "But, if in doubt, then allow discussions to take place." closing a discussion per WP:SNOW is an oxymoron. that is just a book with the episode plot and a bunch of in-universe trivia. It would add nothing to the article. What should be added for these articles to be kept is real world information such as production info. Take a look at the two good articles in the season for comparison: Pilot (House) and Three Stories. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The reference added is a secondary source not a primary one and it demonstrates the notability of the topic. Your opinion on what should go into the article is irrelevant to consideration of deletion. That we have good articles about other episodes demonstrates that these topics are basically sound - all that is needed is more editing work per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• My point is quite valid, Warden. if you need to to repeat it and elaborate on just what WP:EPISODE says, I will. Basically, if all you can write into an episode article is a basic plot and cast, then it shouldn't be an article. Episode guides, even in book form, are not reliable sources in terms of helping to establish notability. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Colonel Warden's point also is valid: WP:EPISODES is a style guideline and does not require removal of episode articles. Your opinion that "it shouldn't be an article" is fine, but let's remember that it is your opinion and not a Wikipedia policy. Cresix (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's hair-splitting and wikilawyering. Let's try this again. We have a guideline in place to, y'know, guide editors through the process of determining if a separate article is necessary for an episode. This process has been effectively ignored in this case. I'd like to hear a valid reason as to why. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The last-resort argument when consensus doesn't go the way someone wants it: accuse everyone of wikilawyering. Here's the bottom line, Tarc: it's a style guideline. It's not a policy. Style is subject to change depending on consensus. Style can be "effectively ignored" if that is the consensus. Consensus is a policy; style and guidelines are not policies. If the consensus is to keep the articles, the articles will be kept. People have expressed their opinions here, and that's all that's required for consensus. We don't have to jump to your demands to repeatedly respond to you here. Let me suggest that you take a couple of deep breaths, calm down, and wait for the consensus process to take place. Cresix (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point we're not even speaking on/at the same level. Yes, style can be set aside; it says as much at the top, and for fuck's sake, I have even noted as much here. What I have been saying is that no valid reason has really been given for doing so in this case. We have people waving at secondary sources that are rather inferior, others that scream "OMG PAST CONSENSUS!" (i.e. you), and so on. Give us a valid reason why the episode guideline should be set aside for these episodes. Not a herd mentality of "we say so". Not a finger-point to a past AfD. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, please calm down and stop personalizing this. And please stop making demands. Cresix (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep all per all of the keep arguments in the previous attempts to delete House episodes. There has been overwhelming support to keep these article. Cresix (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, all of them. Easily satisfies WP:NOTE. Plenty of secondary sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V available for coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• They do all fail WP:PLOT a policy vs. the notability guideline and are basically bloated duplicates of to the season page. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:PLOT indicates that we should aim to provide other material besides plot synopses. This in no way justifies deletion of incomplete articles which have yet to be fully expanded and completed. All these articles already contain non-plot content such as the cast, writer, broadcast date and it is quite feasible to add more as it is found. It is our editing policy to leave incomplete articles in mainspace so that they be expanded and improved. The idea that we will get more non-plot content by deleting what we have already is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep all: I am comfortable with the organizational scheme we've adopted for this high-profile major network show. If it was some croatian reality show, that would be a different thing.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all Per the outcome of the last discussion about this issue. We've talked about this for a long time last September/October during the previous nomination, and the outcome was keep. Why should that suddenly have changed in a few months? Regards, VR-Land (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Everyone's saying "Keep, it's notable," but they're not saying why it's notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nobody apart from you has said, "Keep, it's notable," — please do not use invented quotations. As for the notability issue, this is evident from the reliable and independent sources such as this and that which contain detailed coverage of each episode. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Books that provide nothing more than just a listing of the plot and some trivia would provide nothing to the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• These books are reliable sources; you are not. Your personal opinion of appropriate content and whether it is trivial has no standing - see core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Speed Keep All per the comments from the Hunting AfD. It is way too soon to make this debate go on again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Half a year after a discussion which said: "more can be added" and then nothing was added, would make this not to soon. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep all or Redirect all. I would suggest a speedy keep as the nominator did not want actual deletion (only redirection), but Tarc made an argument for deletion without redirection, so the debate cannot be closed in this way. I don't think the articles should be deleted outright; as the nominator suggests, the titles would be good redirects. Therefore, I would say not to delete. Whether the articles should be merged, redirected, or kept is for a different discussion. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, that is exactly the discussion here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep all Cursory view shows multiple RS, other WP:VAGUEWAVEs notwithstanding. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having one article per TV episode when each episode attracts multiple RS. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all per Jclemens. I mentioned at the last AfD that this book also would likely be useful in building up the content of some of these articles which are too heavy on plot alone. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• That book is just an episode guide and provides no other info than already in the articles. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, that book contains other material such as "discussions of the show's medical science and controversial ethical issues". Each episode typically features a medical mystery and so it is good to have sources which go into this aspect and explains the details. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The articles definitely all require a major improvement to add more than just plot, but this certainly can and should be done. If, for whatever reason, they remain as simple plot summaries, than a merge may be in order, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be improved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The articles have been waiting for that for five years, still hasn't been done, despite everyone saying that these is so much that can be added. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid deletion argument. postdlf (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect...if - if with sufficient time these articles are not cleaned up to at least meet the GNG. Having a book that could satisfy the GNG is not the same as actually using that book. If a book was mentioned in the last AfD, and nothing has happened since that point then either the book was not as useful as people thought or people don't care enough about the pages to clean them up. I do not agree with deleting them because there is still a history of work for each of those pages and at this time all of their titles would still be useable as redirects to the season page. So, I say if you cannot at least start showing that 2 pages can be brought up to the GNG within say 5 days (which is nothing, you can order that book from Amazon and get it overnight) then redirect all until they can be. In addition, you don't even need that book to at least meet the GNG, you just need "significant coverage" - which would be probably 3 professional reviews. You do that and, even though the page would have basically no real substance, you'll have the GNG met. So, the editors of these pages need to step up to the plate and put some work in and not live by the "the info is out there, but we're too lazy to use it" motto that is apparently flooding the House pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect: I'm an inclusionist, and think every episode of every show ever should have it's own article--but only if it's more than a plot description. However, almost all of these articles are basically plot descriptions, which can be found anywhere else. If the quality of most or all of the articles changes, then I'll change my vote. Until then, redirect. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: I've notified Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not of this discussion and asked for info on the application of WP:PLOT. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all per reliable sources, add more commentary, we do not delete an article for not having any yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all; apart from being in furtherance of Wikipedia's coverage of a notable dramatic TV series, every episode is the subject of critical review, by for example, the A.V. Club here. TV criticism of has really boomed in the past few years; even ten years ago I was regularly reading the Entertainment Weekly online reviews of individual Buffy episodes, for example. Re: WP:PLOT complaints, I have a feeling that those few who don't like individual episode articles are judging the length of plot summary from the view of the series as a whole, rather than treating each episode as an individual work of fiction as is appropriate with this kind of dramatic series. For the record, I don't even like House, but the subject merits this kind of treatment. postdlf (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis that House is one of the few shows that multiple sources regularly review, ensuring secondary coverage. Again, I pose what I said above if some feel this isn't sufficient, that 4 random episodes be shown to be notable ensuring the rest are too. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The original mass nomination of 20 articles would have make improvement of those 20 a bit problematic, but finding it now includes an aditional 112 articles does not allow any reasonable or common sense expectation that all 132 could or would be improved in a 7 day period. As noted by other editors, the series' various episodes have received individual recognition and commentary. As each has sources available, we have an individual notability apart from the notability of the series. Wikipedia itself recognizes that it is not perfect and that there is always work that can be done. But it does not also demand that 132 improvable articles must be fixed in seven days. Immediatism is not policy, unreferenced does not automatically equate to unreferencable, and patience can improve the project. The nominator left a neutral notice on my talk page about an AFD to delete 20 season one articles.[1] It was only after arriving that I learned the number of articles being considered for deletion had grown nearly 700% from 20 articles to 132. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Actually that is just a proposal and hasn't happened yet. Whether it is 20 or 132 articles the issue remains the same. Lets start with 4 articles like Masem proposed. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete For the most part the articles are in pretty bad shape. I'd be in favour of keeping them all if there was a solid plan in place for their improvement, but no one is coming along saying they are prepared to do the necessary work to get these articles up to scratch. If we keep them and wait for someone to come along, who knows how long it will be? Months? Years? I say delete. Articles can always be re-created later when sufficient information can be lined up. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• That is not a policy-based argument. The actual editing policy of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Being welcome, these imperfect drafts should therefore be retained for further work. If you can see that particular improvements are needed, then please oblige us by making them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete all. Plot descriptions with trivially light dressing violate WP:NOT#PLOT. Articles can be created after there's a reason to do so, not in anticipation that there may be something to write someday. Additionally, WP:EPISODE indicates that separate articles are reserved for outstanding episodes. There is no demonstration that any of these episodes stands out from a run-of-the-mill episode of House.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that WP:EPISODE is a style guideline, not a notability guideline. We don't delete things for not meeting style guidelines. Or for not meeting SNGs when the GNG is met, for that matter. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • We frequently delete articles for not meeting SNG when the GNG is met. Should happen far more often that it does, but we have an unfortunately large group of editors that believe the GNG overrides all editorial judgment. Useless articles should be deleted, and these articles are useless. There is sufficient plot description in the "List of" article, our style guideline indicates the articles should not exist, and WP:NOT indicates the articles shouldn't exist. There isn't a reasonable argument for keeping them.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      • WP's goal is to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of works. The GNG sets a good line that if the topic is covered in depth in reliable sources, we are reasonably assured that it has a potentially wide interest and will mee WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. When an SNG (which EPISODE is not, btw) steps in to limit the GNG, this is because usually that while there may be reliable sources, the interest in the topic is not high - eg, ATH limits coverage of local athletes sourced only to local papers.
        This obviously is not true of a television series watched by millions of people, which is why there's no stricter SNG for television shows. They still have to meet the GNG, and the working presumption that is being properly argued is that each episode of a modern primetime drama is going to have reviews and secondary coverage that exists, simply that interested editors have not included these in the articles, but we know they exist. To call for deletion of those based on the fact that sources are known to exist but no one has included them is a terrible approach to wiki-building. Now, yes, you can probably argue that no one proven the sources exists, which is why I brought up the 4 episode test above - show a random selection can be improved, and pretty sure the rest can be too. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect all to season articles. Per WP:PLOT "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works" (emphasis mine). There is nothing to suggest any of these individual episodes are especially notable on their own. Since it is likely that people would search for these episodes, it makes more sense to have redirects rather than nothing. Icalanise (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all. That the articles do not currently meet the standards of WP:PLOT is irrelevant; the question of whether they should be deleted should be based on whether reliable, third-party sources exist to a sufficient degree that an encyclopedic treatment beyond a cursory plot description would be possible. Other editors have shown that books discussing the show's production and medical/ethical commentary on each episode exist; these could and should be used to beef up the articles. The source material is there; all that's needed is for an editor to do the work of putting it into the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Think of the readers! While I'm sure this is somewhere at WP:ATA, it shouldn't be. At Grok.se, we can see that the title article of this AfD is getting 100 hits per day as of last December. That's an awful lot of hits for an article of poor quality, for a single episode that's over six years old. Fact is, our readers continue to view these articles and not complain about them. Why? Because they don't care about some Mandarinesque WP:EPISODE guideline--they expect Wikipedia to deliver this info, as we have over the years, and they will be disappointed if we do not. Of course, they don't show up at AfD discussions--that's primarily of the domain of people who are more concerned about what Wikipedia "should" be than developing it into what it CAN be. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly it can be a television guide, but it most certainly shouldn't it. I'd be more than happy to install soft redirects to IMDB for these titles.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with soft redirects to IMDb is that the Wikipedia articles are immensely superior to IMDb. And readers here don't have to wade through glaring ads. Funny, IMDb is considered anathema for adding something to Wikipedia, but now it seems to serve the purpose of removing something when it suits our purposes. Cresix (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is what it is. Not an anathema, it's basically a user-contributed index of per-episode plots, casts, and production details. Not reliable enough to use as a source, but it certainly is where a raft of per-episode plots, cast lists, and production details belong.—Kww(talk) 02:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Emphatic keep all per Rpeh|T, Cresix, Dream Focus and others (and hat tip to Milowent for mentioning Croatian reality shows) - this has been amply debated recently, and bringing this here again now is disruptive and unproductive. How about using this energy to improve the articles rather than going for slash-and-burn? Tvoz/talk 06:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all As someone who has contributed to a few of those articles, I am strongly against deleting any of them. Most of them went through multiple AfDs. We really should direct our energy into something a little more constructive, not go after everything that doesn't fit neatly into a box. The show is still ongoing, most of those articles have at least some or the other reference included. I suggest the people who nominated the article and are currently supporting its deletion to look at List of Heroes episodes or List of 30 Rock episodes and the individual episode pages, if the criticism is against the nature of episode articles and a plot-driven narrative, then consider those that reached GA and even FA status. I don't understand why this series is singled out, I'm sure you can find similar episode articles at the same level in any of those series. At the end of the day, people are still viewing and reading these articles, that has to count for something. Theo10011 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• This show is not being singled out, it's one in many where this has happened. This one is just meeting with some baffling opposition, which led to this AfD. I'll take for example Supernatural (TV series), all the episodes where redirected to the episode list some years ago, the ones that do have an article are FA's/GA's and one has production/reception info. The articles offer nothing more than already in the episode list, which is the plot. You might be interested in Category:Episode redirects to lists, most (not all) are redirected episode articles (some where created redirects for ease of linking and search etc.). This happened to The Unit (TV series), Friends, The X-Files, Charmed etc. many shows, and more episodes. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - What I believe this is coming down to is less an issue of notability and more getting these articles up to snuff expected of other articles - eg the balance of having WP:DEADLINE extend indefinitely. I can say with 99% assuredness that every House episode meets the GNG in that each episode is reviewed by reliable sources. (If there is doubt to this, that 4-episode test I mention above is a way to show this). The problem is that, even though these have been up for deletion before, no one has bothered to improve them beyond plot elements. So we have topics that are known to be notable and meet the GNG, but no one improving them. This is where there's a conflict in policies as while we have no deadlines, we also don't want to let poor quality articles (particularly when it comes to sourcing) as these are often used as templates by newer editors unaware of the details of notability and sourcing. And since this is not the first time this has happened for these articles, there is question if anyone has enough interest at the present to do this.
That said, this never should have been taken to AFD. The original nominator said they tried to redirect the episode articles, and met with resistance. But even the nominator says that a redirection is preferred over deletion, and this makes sense - episode names are likely search terms and redirects are cheap. Thus, thinking this through more, this really should have been an RFC at the TV project or some centralized discussion page. AFD, being specifically about "deletion", is not an action being sought, and implicitly asks for these articles to all be fixed in 7 days, which is impractical and unfair.
I think the best solution right now is to end this discussion and create a new RFC to try to work out the balance between all these episodes being notable but not presently showing it, and the lack of a deadline. This is going to be something that likely applies to many TV episode articles most likely created before the GNG was about (eg pre 2006 shows). I know I've suggested drives to do basic cleanup in this area before, but they don't really catch on. -MASEM (t) 13:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect all episode articles that are pure plot dumps in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. There are widely accepted season articles around that serve the purpose of summarising the plot considely, and also don't have the problem of Wikipedia:Content forking. WP:NOTABILITY hasn't been established for years, and it's fair to assume that it can't be. Redirects can easily be restored if the opposite is shown to be true. Alternatively, I support Masem's proposal to first see if a randomly selected batch of ep articles can be shown to be notable, and only redirect if nothing comes of it. But the cleanup process has to start some time, and today is as good as tomorrow.– sgeureka ^t•c 13:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• What's the point--though I applaud nominator for trying. Despite the chatter at the last AfD about how many sources there were and how important all these individual episodes are, I see no evidence of any of it--not the sources, not the improved articles, not the anything-more-than-plot-and-a-couple-of-directorylinks. Well, in case the next AfD wants to count votes again, here's a delete for the same reasons as last time, reasons that in my opinion are still valid. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I just added a 'reference' to one of these articles. That the reflist still needed (or needs) to be added is telling. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect per Icanalise. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect all. As a d&r veteran of the episode wars, I have nonetheless warmed to the idea of episode-specific content based on the work that many have done (including many !voting keep here) in improving overall content. I support the idea that articles which consist of a plot summary be redirected, but with no prejudice (indeed, warm encouragement), that they be recast as stand-alone articles when real-world content and context can be provided. Eusebeus (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems very reasonable to me. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all. They can be improved, we can't just delete an article because it isn't finished, by that logic, no Wikipedia article deserves to be there. References can be found, added and the articles can be improved. Let us stop this, it has already been done a few months ago and it was heavily argued against. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 13:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant Redirect all to season articles, per User:Gene93k. I've never really been such a huge fan of the elimination or the removal of episode articles, and frequently suspect that the motives for many redirections and deletions may actually be cases of WP:JDLI. However, while the issue of notablility is valid, the information is still useful, and would be available in the histories. ----DanTD (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• RedirectAll house episode articles that fail notabilty and plot, but have some useful infomration that can be useful in history for potential future bring back of the episode, DeleteAll episode that do not have anything special in them and jsut bare pages as all these pages have no use or sub stance ot wikipeida these all should be fan wiki as wikipedia is not fansite. majority of peopel want them kept becaus ehter fans but there plenty of show that are bigger than house having the epsidoe aritlce deleted for the same reason, and for all the peopel who say they can vbe improved yes but whena article has hardly any deiting in logn time either no care or nothing exists so they have to go--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep All: The actual problem is not that references do not exist, but that it is almost impossible to find a RS about what you're looking for with all the fan sites, mirrors, and unrelated material; you're almost forced to work it backwards - read through a RS in its entirety, determine where that information might go, and then make sure you're not duplicating something already in place. The last of the season 1 episode articles wasn't even created until 2 years after it aired. Online sources may have appeared quickly, but it's now difficult to sort to them. The current season episodes are created quickly. If the episodes are re-directed into the seasons, the information will have nowhere else to go and the season articles will get problematically long. I have 235 yeears of U.S. history and 15K politician articles I haven't finished my own index for to prioritize, but I still expect them to be there. Lately I've just been hitting random, and looking for things that interest me, redlinks to solve, and obvious errors. That these still existed in Hunchback of Notre Dame and Little Rock Nine telks me this project has no end in sight, but when I look for information on an episode, finding it in a season article is a lot more difficult. Please don't take leaps backward. Sorry for rambling. Dru of Id (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep all because this would set a very bad precedent. There were a few seasons of the show when it was in the top-3 most watched show in the US. That makes it notable. Plenty reviews are available around the net since the show has been running since internet reviews have been common. There is production data available for the episodes on the DVD. Nergaal (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  We're discussing the articles proposed for deletion, not other articles. Also, if you want to see precedent I'll point to thousands of articles already redirected for the same reasons, they're located in Category:Episode redirects to lists. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• and I could point to thousands that haven't, almost always highly popular US shows like this one.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and improve: If the nominating editor and anyone else thinks that the individual episode articles fail WP:NOTABILITY, then – pardon my French – get off your asses and do some actual work because I'm positive many of those articles can have at least a "review" section added to them, with at least a couple of WP:RS. "Scrubbing" is always the easy way out. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep all. Yes, the plot summaries need pruning. But there's no reason why TV episodes which "chart" high in the Neilsen ratings with audiences in the millions should be found insufficiently notable for articles while music singles, especially those in limited genres, which "chart" with sales only in the thousands are treated as notable. Less plot summary, more information on ratings and reviews/commentary needed; that's a formula for improvement, not a basis for deletion. And at least two of the laundry-list nominated first season episodes have Emmy nominations (and there may by other nominations for significant awards), which none of the delete !votes have taken into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Most American shows chart in millions. I did find one show that actually never came at all close to one million. The starz show [grav•i•ty] bottomed out at 29000 viewers and topped out at 146000 viewers. I wouldn't make individual articles on its episodes but at the same time having millions of viewers for an episode is common to even shows like the recently quickly cancelled Lone Star, Outlaw, and The Whole Truth. I could maybe name a Canadian show you might not know of which has had at least 1 million viewers in Canada for an episode :) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• keep them all - find someone interested in expanding them   I view deletion as 'hide from public consumption' and there is nothing so demanding of such action here. The nominator began 8 discussions and they went mostly unnoticed and so began using the lack of opposition to a proposal to void the last AfD as support for his edits. I noticed the one discussion that had been responded to. The nominator described the articles as worthy of being deleted on sight - not even CSD or Proposed Deletion tagging the ones not explicitly covered by the previous AfDs. I had objection to that course of action and perspective. And here we are again re House episodes. jclemens made a very good point to think of the readers. I stumbled into the early stages of this round of discussion on House episodes because i was doing some reading. jclemens also makes a very good point that such an argument is probably in the 'arguments not to make' and that it shouldn't be. The rules that exist these days are some of the most pretentious i have ever found. I realise they exist because of mostly good intentions from people who may still be involved but the application of most of the guidelines, rules, and policies has become hostile, contradictory, out-ranking, detrimental, and generally dismissing the interests of the audience for the sake of what the author is interested in. Killing articles for being plot summaries of culturally significant tv shows that are popular in most countries which predominantly speak the language of the show is akin to killing off the articles on anything like Alfred Peachous. Honestly, i would love to nominate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for deletion because it has become one of the most divisive pages ever found on the site. "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community..." and later on the same page is found, "Wikipedia is not a social network like Twitter or Facebook." Fighting over the difference between an online community and a social network would be something i would love to read for the entertainment value. As such i summarily dismiss that entire page of what Wikipedia is not, including the prohibition on plot-stubs. If you can't not rely on a huge pile of rules to ensure you write something appropriate then maybe.... As for redirecting, i personally wouldn't mind since i personally have read the House articles i am interested in. When looking at the policies, rules, and guidelines they could stay because they don't qualify for CSD and have potential for great improvement and getting rid of them just because they have not been made GA is not a valid reason, however they (mostly) could be redirected for not having asserted anything more than inherited notability. What really is of concern here is that there appears to be not a single person who is interested in expanding these articles beyond plot-stubs. My personal interest in the show has greatly diminished in the last couple of years and i usually watch anything but FOX on Mondays at 8pmET these days. As such i had to be reminded that i kinda prompted this AfD in the first place and maybe i should comment. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete all the episode articles that fail to meet the notability standard, consist principally of plot, and are unverified by reliable sources. — Fourthords | =/\= | 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has a bee in their bonnet about this.Most TV programmes will have synopsis for each episode,this is no different,how you can propose getting rid of nearly 150 episodes and summing them all up in sufficient detail on one page is absolutely ridiculous. The extra plot pages do contain information eg about the medical procedures involved, guest stars etc. Getting rid of all the pages is a pointless and futile activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.251.208 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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.