Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thing That Wouldn't Die

The Thing That Wouldn't Die

The Thing That Wouldn't Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This episode does not conform to the standards set by WP:EPISODE, so it currently fails WP:N. There is no assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and find sources. It's the series finale, surely there are articles about it. It needs sourcing and a shortening of the plot description, of course. Pinball22 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per consensus and because it is the series finale which lends weight and value to notability. I also will sound like a broken record here, but a drive to improve all the 3rd Rock from the Sun articles came to a sudden halt when TTN started autonomously deleted, redirecting, and trying to delete all the articles thus derailing any improvement efforts underway. They will be improved on given time and without any continued disruptive POV edits from TTN. --Maniwar (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Aren't nominators supposed to do some research before they come here? Using Newsbank, I found a number of reviews pertaining to this specific episode:

• Lynn Elber. "3RD ROCK' BLASTS OFF IN FAMILIAR, KOOKY STYLE". The Belleville (IL) News-Democrat. 22 May 2001.
• Alan Pergament. "'3RD ROCK' FINALE GOES THUD". The Buffalo News. 22 May 2001.
• Phil Rosenthal. "`3rd Rock' takes flight; Elvis Costello serenades visitors home". Chicago Sun-Times. 22 May 2001.
• Steve Johnson. "In `Third Rock' finale, Elvis helps them leave". Chicago Tribune. 22 May 2001.
• Mike Duffy. "SILLY AND SUBLIME, ALIENS BLAST OFF FROM PLANET TV". Detroit Free Press. 22 May 2001.

That should be more than enough to satisfy WP:NOTE requirements. Zagalejo^^^ 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Zagalejo. Maxamegalon2000 06:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above Morphh ^(talk) 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Clear Delete and all the above arguments are junk. The article fails the real-world standard for fictional material per WP:FICT; it is WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:TRIVIA. Garnering reviews is hardly an assertion of notability that requires an individual article beyond the main one on the series itself. Where is the real-world context that makes this worth retaining on its own? Eusebeus 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• We're arguing on the notability of the subject, not the present state of the article. The article can always be improved. I don't understand how multiple episode-specific reviews are not good enough (and the ones I posted above are only a sample of what I found). WP:N says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This episode clearly passes that test. Stop moving the goal posts. Zagalejo^^^ 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As a series finale, this episode draw substantial reliable and verifiable coverage, all of which satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments, established sources, WP:EPISODE's direct recommendation against deletion, and based on past assertions by nominator and Eusebeus that redirects are a better solution than deletion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — I see a big fat plot summary and a cast list; the externs are to notoriously non-reliable sources. --Jack Merridew 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are cleanup issues. You haven't given a valid reason for deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now on the basis that this is the final episode and seems to have garnered some non-trivial third-party reviews. I will switch to solid keep if sources have been added to the article, or to redirect if a lack of article improvement calls for another AfD in a few weeks/months. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)