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 delete. LFaraone 04:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Reason: this episode of
Monk (TV series) fails to met the
GNG or the interpretation of it given in
FICTION. TV plot articles like this also fail to meet the specific definition of
WP:IINFO#1.
Keep. Memorable episode. Page could be reformatted and information reorganized, but other than that, it's in a good place. It's also a memorable episode to everyone, like with
Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist.
DReifGalaxyM31 (
talk) 01:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete I think that
Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist got saved, in part, from the same unexplained statement that it was "memorable", along with some of the old school "every episode of every TV show should have an article" arguments. This one, at first glance, suggests real world notability ("Stanley Tucci won an Emmy award for his performance as David Ruskin in the episode.") which is b.s. of the worst variety -- Tucci appeared in an episode called
Mr. Monk and the Actor. There's an [
Wiki for Monk episodes] that exists especially for those folks who believe that every Monk episode deserves its own article. The episode is memorable to me too, what with Monk chasing a jet fighter on foot, but that doesn't make it notable enough for its own article.
Mandsford 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per Mandsford. As an aside, article was nominated on November 24 but the AFD was never transcluded until another editor accidentally filed a second nomination. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 21:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nomination that appears to be my original PROD.
Fæ (
talk) 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Very memorable episode. Unfortunately, can't keep just because of that due to
WP:ILIKEIT. However, with the addition of a Production and Reception section (something I've said over and over on these nominations), it will be notable enough. So, for now, I say we hold off on deleting it immediately.
Kevinbrogers (
talk) 22:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
And again, where do you suggest we build it up? Using sources pulled out of your own butt? I'm not seeing any secondary sources anywhere to make such sections. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 22:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I tend toward Keep for episode summaries and plots, they tend to be the most read articles in Wikipedia. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Even if they're crappy clumps of trivia? Tell me how this episode meets
WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 23:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Britney's boobs would be the most read article in Wikipedia if it were created, but that doesn't mean it should be kept. --
Pontificalibus (
talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Britney's boobs is probably a poor example, I get some good matches in GBooks and several reliable articles in GNews about Britney's boobs.
Fæ (
talk) 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that merge or redirect are normal outcomes from an AfD and so do not preclude these options. BEFORE appears to have been followed and your own edit comment when you removed the PROD on this article recommended AfD; what is it about the process here you are objecting to? Thanks,
Fæ (
talk) 10:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to
Monk (season 4), do not keep as a separate article. Article contains only plot (
WP:NOT#PLOT) and (in-universe) trivia in prose form. The actor Emmy was for a different episode, but even if it was for this episode, a one sentence blurb still fits in the LoE. No evidence of
WP:NOTABILITY for this episode otherwise. –
sgeurekat•
c 08:51, 13 December 2010 (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.
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 delete. LFaraone 04:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Reason: this episode of
Monk (TV series) fails to met the
GNG or the interpretation of it given in
FICTION. TV plot articles like this also fail to meet the specific definition of
WP:IINFO#1.
Keep. Memorable episode. Page could be reformatted and information reorganized, but other than that, it's in a good place. It's also a memorable episode to everyone, like with
Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist.
DReifGalaxyM31 (
talk) 01:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete I think that
Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist got saved, in part, from the same unexplained statement that it was "memorable", along with some of the old school "every episode of every TV show should have an article" arguments. This one, at first glance, suggests real world notability ("Stanley Tucci won an Emmy award for his performance as David Ruskin in the episode.") which is b.s. of the worst variety -- Tucci appeared in an episode called
Mr. Monk and the Actor. There's an [
Wiki for Monk episodes] that exists especially for those folks who believe that every Monk episode deserves its own article. The episode is memorable to me too, what with Monk chasing a jet fighter on foot, but that doesn't make it notable enough for its own article.
Mandsford 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per Mandsford. As an aside, article was nominated on November 24 but the AFD was never transcluded until another editor accidentally filed a second nomination. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 21:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nomination that appears to be my original PROD.
Fæ (
talk) 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Very memorable episode. Unfortunately, can't keep just because of that due to
WP:ILIKEIT. However, with the addition of a Production and Reception section (something I've said over and over on these nominations), it will be notable enough. So, for now, I say we hold off on deleting it immediately.
Kevinbrogers (
talk) 22:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
And again, where do you suggest we build it up? Using sources pulled out of your own butt? I'm not seeing any secondary sources anywhere to make such sections. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 22:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I tend toward Keep for episode summaries and plots, they tend to be the most read articles in Wikipedia. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Even if they're crappy clumps of trivia? Tell me how this episode meets
WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 23:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Britney's boobs would be the most read article in Wikipedia if it were created, but that doesn't mean it should be kept. --
Pontificalibus (
talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Britney's boobs is probably a poor example, I get some good matches in GBooks and several reliable articles in GNews about Britney's boobs.
Fæ (
talk) 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that merge or redirect are normal outcomes from an AfD and so do not preclude these options. BEFORE appears to have been followed and your own edit comment when you removed the PROD on this article recommended AfD; what is it about the process here you are objecting to? Thanks,
Fæ (
talk) 10:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to
Monk (season 4), do not keep as a separate article. Article contains only plot (
WP:NOT#PLOT) and (in-universe) trivia in prose form. The actor Emmy was for a different episode, but even if it was for this episode, a one sentence blurb still fits in the LoE. No evidence of
WP:NOTABILITY for this episode otherwise. –
sgeurekat•
c 08:51, 13 December 2010 (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.