Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Me (Grey's Anatomy)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 1). Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save Me (Grey's Anatomy)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Save Me (Grey's Anatomy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The article (as with the other articles in the series) meets NOT PLOT: By my count, there are 162 words of unduplicated information about production elements, and only 50 about the plot. What the plot section needs is expansion: various patients are mentioned, but we are not told what becomes of them. That's using a TEASER, rather than fully encyclopedic writing, it's too much in the manner of a TV guide. Reducing the length of the section into a list would make it even worse. A plot summary needs to be long enough to say what happens in the episode as well as what is left unresolved. The source for the plot is of course the episode itself, as it ought to be. The source for the production data does need to be stated. That's two refs. Has the nominator or anyone looked for reviews or coverage of the episode in appropriate on and off-line sources? The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. And it's odd to talk about the mass production of episodes: naturally it;s more efficient to do a group of them at once, because the sources will facilitate it. You might as well complain that our articles on settlements or football teams are stereotyped in format. It would be much worse to cover each in an idiosyncratic manner.
        Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes 1 minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article. disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. Trying to remove articles like this makes it harder to deal with the ones that do need deletion . I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. Trying to remove articles like this makes it harder to deal with the ones that do need deletion . Disruption is a strong word, and I stand by it, though I will assume the nominator did not realize the effect of diverting effort from the needed deletions--I could have considered and deleted half a dozen speedies found in New Page Patrol in the time it took to write this one opinion. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These have been unsourced for over a year. If an article that needs sourcing is required, it can then be made (at that time). And I disagree that it requires hours to source. If it takes that long, it probably is not notable. If every episode was sourcable, does that make the episode notable? Although Grey's Anatomy is a great show, I see no notability come from every episode.
WP:DELETION states that articles are kept on the basis of notability, as such, these nominations were done on that basis. See WP:NOTABILITY.
The criterion is not sourcability: as by precedent many articles with many references have been deleted.
You are free to contribute whatever you wish. If you somehow think I have wasted your time, you do not need to give any more time and effort than theyyou wish.Curb Chain (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, just for clarity, I started with this trio of AfDs , and then started working on the others from the top of the list. But if you decide to respond to me further, you will find that , unlike you, I wrote something different foreach article, after checking its actual contents.
You have wasted my time indeed in one sense, but it will not but have really been wasted if I can have an effect on this manner of listing deletions. Basically I am not giving the attention to you, but to the articles you nominated for deletion. To the extent I am giving any attention to you, it's because of the way you have abused the process. As some of the many discussions above show, you've apparently written the nominations without reading the articles, under the impression they would be identical. I care about getting the right articles deleted, which implies that I care about getting the right ones kept also. (I may have originally intended to work here to save articles, but I find I'm deleting several times more than I even try to rescue--but the right ones, the ones that need to be deleted. Detailed coverage of fiction does not need to be deleted, no matter the intrinsic worth of the fiction.) Whether what you specifically have been doing here needs to be discussed further, I leave to others.
the criterion is sourceable, and there are hundreds of thousands of AfDs to prove it. The relevant policy is WP:V--we must be able to find sources for our material, but we do not delete an article for not having them at the moment. In fact, I could add two sources immediately to every article: the relevant DVD for the plot, as for fictional works the primary source is considered the best source for a plain statement about the plot, and the DVD jacket, an acceptable source for production information. The distinction is being able to be sourced, not currently sourced at the moment. As I have mentioned a few times above, it takes about 100 times more effort to actually do this, than to list for deletion; when you list several dozen similar articles for deletion at once, you make proper sourcing during the AfD nearly impossible. I'm not saying that was necessarily your intention, but it is the effect of what you have done.
That articles with many references are deleted shows that there are other things necessary for keeping an article as well as pure number of sources: for one thing, the sources must offer significant coverage about the material. There are other reasons for deletion as well, such as duplication, unrewritable promotionalism, BLP considerations, and the various special notability guidelines, and a good deal else.
And, as for your first point, there is NO DEADLINE for improving articles. As you will find if you try to press it, that's the consensus, & it's been the cause for rejecting many nominations. We're not the encyclopedia of only those things that can be done quickly. I now leave this issue to other editors, at least for the time being. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you completely ignoring WP:N? I otherwise I have not seen any argument for retention.Curb Chain (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:21, 9 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Save_Me_(Grey%27s_Anatomy)&oldid=1071395454"