Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunting (House): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:26, 5 October 2010

Hunting (House)

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

I do not believe this article meets the guidelines as laid out in Wikipedia:Television episodes. Some sources are given, as with all the episodes from this season of House, but those aren't independent, significant discussions of the topic as required by our notability guidelines. The article has been tagged for notability and as unreferenced since April 2010, and consists, like the others in this season, of only plot, infobox, and templates. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following House episode article AfDs redirect here:

Acceptance (House)

Autopsy (House)

Humpty Dumpty (House)

TB or Not TB

Hunting (House) (obviously)

Failure to Communicate

Sleeping Dogs Lie (House)

Who's Your Daddy? (House)

No Reason (House)

Acceptance (House)

– sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - But this shouldn't be done piecemeal. An editor should go through all the episodes, determine which are not notable, and create one consolidated nomination for them. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the episodes from season 2 are notable, in my opinion--but this one was tagged for a long, long time, and I still don't know how to do multiple nominations. 10lb Hammer, the card-carrying deletionist of TV episodes, is probably real good at it. ;) (This is also to say that you have my blessing to add the rest of season 2 to this nomination!) Drmies (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either approach is acceptable, insomuch as you'll get people bitching about it equally either way. If you nominate them one at a time then people will complain that they should all be considered together. If you bundle them then people will complain that they should be considered separately. Instructions for listing multiple related pages are found here. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'mma let you finish, but... whatever. For the moment, I'm withholding my !vote. IMNSHO, the vast majority of the House episodes are non-notable and should be consigned to electronic oblivion (though I'm willing to bet there's a Housepedia, I refuse to look for it). Most are simple plot summaries, with some blogldygook from, well, blogs about how accurate the medical mumbo-jumbo is or is not. The major characters, while probably(?) notable lack coverage in indicate same. I'd like a nice neat package of episodes to send to the flames together, rather than the piecemeal attack. I, too, await the learned hammer to strike while the ... You get the idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of reliable sources, but I agree that a bundle would've been better. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as consisting wholly of plot and a handful of external links and unreferenced production minutiae. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hammer, if you don't mind, please bundle them in here, on my behalf: a. you know how to do this b. I gotta run and won't be back for a few hours. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have made several significant improvements to the article, I have cited sources and am working on each House episode article to improve their quality, therefore any premature deletion would be unwise. - Thecheesykid talk
Delete - no independent reliable sources establish the notability of this individual episode apart from the series. The current sources are a fansite blog and a music listing at Amazon, neither of which remotely satisfy WP:GNG. Having written several articles on notable individual episodes, I suggest that the process to follow is locate the independent reliable sources first and then write the article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Struck !vote of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources for this notable topic are readily available as I have demonstrated by adding one - took all of a minute. All the comments above which are based upon an assumption that there are no sources are thus voided. Please see our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, three and a half sentences about the episode in a 264 page book, and all of it in-universe to boot. That's some real in-depth coverage there. Can I pompously declare your !vote to be void now because of the trivial nature of your supposed source? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That book covers the episode in multiple places. Rather than go counting scattered sentences, I just spend another minute browsing the sources and immediately find The House That Hugh Laurie Built which has a substantial section about this particular episode. The claim that there are no sources is thus shown to be blatantly counterfactual and so is comprehensively and thoroughly voided. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for your opinion, ipso facto the e pluribus unum. Is the book a reliable source? Maybe. Does it provide substantial coverage of episode? Maybe. Does it discuss the episode's importance or is it's coverage purely in-universe? So far, it's all in-universe. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation seems quite mistaken - perhaps you read something else. The most recent source leads off by providing details of the writer, cast and broadcast. It comments on the positioning of the episode within the season and its impact in providing "a needed jolt of sass, sex and intrigue". Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By now, the article has been improved. As to the fact that much of the article is telling the plot, that is the article's main task. If you are going to delete every article about the plot of an episode from a TV-series, you've got a long way to go. --VR-Land (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We are going to delete every article that does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's an on-going task. If you feel the article meets our guidelines, please explain how. If you feel our guidelines should be changed, this discussion is not the place to do it. If you feel this is a "special case" and we should ignore the rules, please explain why. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It in fact is not the "main task" of an article about a television episode to recount the episode's plot. Per WP:PLOT, plot-only descriptions of fictional works are unacceptable. Per WP:WAF, articles written from a purely in-universe perspective are to be avoided. Fictional topics should have sources that discuss them from an out-of-universe perspective, which includes such things as casting, production, critical reception, cultural impact and so on. Per WP:GNG, a subject requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish its notability. Passing mentions in much larger books don't cut it. Plot descriptions coupled with trivia and "booboos" don't cut it. Five or ten or fifty regurgitations of the plot don't cut it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And as far as the supposed improvement to the article since nomination, I see little beyond the addition of what appears to be original research in the form of a list of material within the episode that is purported without sourcing to refer to Sherlock Holmes and pee that smells like asparagus. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant out-of-universe coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been indef-blocked as an abusive sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Otto4711. His !vote and comments above have been stricken. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Since the other AFDs link here, and its all the same anyway, I'll just say keep in one place and save time. The episodes are listed in the book Colonel Warden mentioned. Its a notable show, and these days any show like this has all of its episodes mentioned in the news media somewhere. Because of having a name like "House" makes it difficult to search for, there far too many results appearing, it is hard to find them. I did a Google news search for "episode of House" and got some promising results [1]. A lot there to sort through. Dream Focus 11:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the rules are that being mentioned does not equate to being notable, that's clear also. To the newcomers, you'll have to explain that the "all" you are referring to is the section removed by the Colonel, incorrectly. Focus, I would not object to leaving redirects, and that takes care of the search issue. But there is still no evidence that any of these episodes are independently notable, and no actual proof fro the claim that they are possibly notable. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as SummerPhD says. That book is in-universe. Please find source for actual real-world notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable; lacking significant rs coverage, original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are already season episode lists which contain brief plot summaries of the episodes. This means that even if this AFD is closed "delete", it would still be reasonable to recreate the page as a redirect to House_(season_2). This makes me wonder why we are even discussing pushing the delete button in the first place. Why not instead open up a discussion at wikiproject house about which episodes are notable enough for a standalone article and which should be redirected. One advantage to that approach is that if something happens or something is found later that shows that the episode is notable enough for a standalone article, the article history is still there and it can be restored without having to go to DRV or facing CSD G4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to my above comment, I'm surprised that nobody has !voted redirect to House_(season_2). To SummerPhD, there is a housepedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ron, as I indicated earlier above, I am not opposed to that. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the season article per the excellent arguments above. Reyk _YO! 21:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to the season 2 list. If the consensus is not to have individual episodes, then the terse snippets in the season lists need expanding, there's plot points that have been noted in secondary sources that will be totally removed otherwise, and that won't help our readers one bit. It's funny isn't it how we're increasingly driving those who want plot summaries of episodes to Wikia? Here's a review of the episode from TV Squad:[2]. Fences&Windows 22:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. Not a "reliable source", but the Polite Dissent reviews of House episodes are always good:[3] Fences&Windows 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ Keep ~~or merge~~ Arguments like "that source doesn't count, it's all in-universe" are not based in policy or guidelines as far as I can see. The book is a solid RS in this context. If you have doubts, feel free to take it to the RS noticeboard. That said, it appears to be the sole independent, secondary RS identified so far. So a merge makes reasonable sense though I strongly suspect there are episode reviews in RSes out there. Hobit (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The TV squad article mentioned below is interesting. I'd assumed that wasn't a RS, but it looks like the writers are paid and part of AOL and has editors, and editor-in-chief etc. So looks like we meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources exist to make a GA out of every House ep. Whether anyone cares to do that is another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non trivial RS. [4] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of RS commentary exist on every House episode. It comes with the popularity, but there's no exception to the GNG just because the reliable-yet-popular press vs. the ivory tower provides the sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how the book User:Colonel Warden found is "in-universe". It recognizes that the show is fictional, and reviews how the episode fits into the real world of audience reactions, medicine, continuity errors, and other fictional works. Abductive (reasoning) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added all AfDed House articles whose AfD template links here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to House (season 2). I guess there may one or two episodes that can be expanded to B-Class, but at the moment these articles just consist of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and sometimes which songs played in an episode (i.e. practically only trivial real-world info). Redirect the articles first and allow only those ep articles to be recreated that provide sufficient real-world info in the article. Otherwise the plot summary can fit in the season article. A book covering all episodes does not mean every episode is individually notable. I have always been opposed to using TV Squad to establish notability of episodes since they cover all episodes of certain series, and that usually in a poor fashion. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a horse and cart issue here. I'd say if a book provides significant coverage of a topic, it's a RS that counts toward notability. Heck, if we are going to bundle all these together (which I thought the ANI discussion concluded was the wrong thing to do) you basically must accept sources that hit every episode. Are we really expecting folks to pull out different sources for each of the 20+ episodes that all redirect here? Rather we're forced to look at sources that cover most or all the episodes in detail. As far as TV squad goes, it too is a RS that covers the individual episodes in detail. That AOL believes it can make money off of these reviews implies pretty strongly that people care (which honestly is darn obvious given the number of people watching these episodes, but that's not helpful for notability on Wikipedia) and that the topic is "worthy of note".
  Let me ask this question: given the bundling, what kind of sources are you looking for that would get you to think this group of articles should be kept? Hobit (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. With all these other episode articles bundled in at day 4, resetting the clock on this discussion seems reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Notable. --3sides (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All Multiple reliable sources have been produced which testify to the notability of the episodes of the show. Note that this show is so outstanding that we have a list just to record all its awards! There is not the slightest case for deletion of this material and expanding the AFD in this frivolous and counter-factual way is doing the disruptive work of a banned editor contrary to WP:BAN. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Default to keep Debating this number of episodes at once is impractical, bulk-nominations are best left for open-and-shut cases which this isn't. Bundling multiple nominations together days after the AFD has been running is just not on, the entirely predictable train-wreck is already happening. I don't see how deletion is even on option in this case, at the very least redirecting would be the thing to do so that the material's preserved. Someone another 17:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all every TV show should be inherently notable. Any contemporary one will have a half dozen summaries online and in print. Episode guides are one of the most read Wikipedia articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "every TV show should be inherently notable" is completely unsupported by policy. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant observation, was it the word "should" that clued you in? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! WP:DICK.161.49.249.254 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If you feel that strongly about it, you're free to start a wiki devoted solely to plot synopses of episodes of TV programs. Mtiffany71 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Did Drmies look for any sources for any of these articles? Was a merge to the season articles considered? Is it reasonable to expect editors to scramble to find sources for 26 articles all at the same time? Why didn't Drmies wait for this one AfD to be resolved before bundling more articles halfway, causing a terrible muddle? Was any thought put into this other than "delete delete delete"? Fences&Windows 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, yes, xe did. Yes, it was. Because xe was asked to do it. Yes there was (and re-check your measurements for 'halfway'). Any more questions? You may want to look at the edit history. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Notable show, big fan base makes for notable episodes. I wish deletionist energy would be better directed, god knows there's plenty of crap that needs attention without attacking the fanzine-style episode treatments that Wikipedia users seem to love. And no, not WP:ILIKEIT because it's a case of WP:IVENEVERSEENIT and WP:CALLINGASPADEASPADE. —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.
- having a huge fanbase is not one of the criteria for having a stand alone article. Having specific "more than trivial" coverage about the specific subject of the article in reliable third party sources is one of the criteria. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Plenty of 3rd party sources available.Theo10011 (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and possibly discuss proper merging, but, most important, work on the articles for sourcing and conciseness. I would feel much more confident about recommending a merge if it were not for the case that those who do not like this articles normally reduce all merged sections to one or two sentences unencyclopedic teasers, DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all As said, the sources and references of the articles have been significantly improved. I think this is a good reason to keep the articles, since the small number of sources/references was enough of a reason for some persons to file them for deletion. Also, House is not just a minor show with a small community of fans, but one of the most viewed TV-shows in the world. --VR-Land (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple reliable sources have been identified; this book as well would likely provide material to build all of these articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple sources offered as to notability. And with respects to the nominator, I disapprove of "bundling" additional articles to an ongoing AFD[5] days after numerous editors began commenting, as this acts as a dis-service to editors trying to meet original issues of the ONE... and allows less time for the subsequent articles to be themselves addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't this sort of cruft what wikia is for? Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete : Acceptance (House), Humpty Dumpty (House), TB or Not TB, Daddy's Boy, Spin (House), The Mistake (House), Deception (House), Failure to Communicate, Need to Know (House), Distractions (House), Skin Deep (House), Sex Kills, Clueless (House), Safe (House), All In (House), Sleeping Dogs Lie (House), House vs. God, Euphoria, Part 1, Euphoria, Part 2, Forever (House), Who's Your Daddy? (House), and No Reason (House) which despite all of the !votes "its notable" no one has actually added any third party reliable sources to the articles to validate that claim. keep Hunting (House) which appears to have at least passing coverage in third party sources and Autopsy (House) which won a significant award. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Why is this being relisted again?? this is the third consecutive time its going through AFD process, was the overwhelming consensus above not enough? is a different outcome expected ? Theo10011 (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that further discussion will not be productive. Also, Cirt actioned 10 other discussions in the same minute. He's obviously not actually reading them so I suppose he's using a bot. This seems improper and so I will take this up with him. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Previous consensus has been for retention of such articles and the claims of notability are met with appropriate sources included in the articles and readily available to be added. Alansohn (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - there are definitely reliable secondary sources out there which cover these episodes, all we need is for someone to integrate them into the articles. What I don't understand is the need for this to happen immediately. If the article for Mars had no citations, we still would not delete it because we know that it's notable. Same goes for these article. They don't really have citations, but we know that the episodes are generally notable. No need to delete them when all it takes is a few minutes to find a few reviews and production info. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 :* I agree that further discussion will not be productive.  Also, Cirt actioned 10 other discussions in the same minute.  He's obviously not actually reading them so I suppose he's using a bot.  This seems improper and so I will take this up with him.  [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 11:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep All''' Previous consensus has been for retention of such articles and the claims of notability are met with appropriate sources included in the articles and readily available to be added. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Keep All''' - there are definitely reliable secondary sources out there which cover these episodes, all we need is for someone to integrate them into the articles. What I don't understand is the need for this to happen immediately. If the article for Mars had no citations, we still would not delete it because we know that it's notable. Same goes for these article. They don't really have citations, but we know that the episodes are generally notable. No need to delete them when all it takes is a few minutes to find a few reviews and production info. '''<font face="verdana">[[User:Cornucopia|<span style="color: Orangered">Corn.u.</span><span style="color: crimson">co.pia</span>]] • [[User talk:Cornucopia|<span style="color: Teal">Disc.u</span><span style="color: Seagreen">s.sion</span>]]</font>''' 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)