Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:15, 14 October 2010

Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No evidence this episode has independent notability. I don't see any indication it was nominated for or received any awards, with no substantive review or commentary from third-party sources. Already appropriately covered at list of episodes --EEMIV (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - AFD is not cleanup. The article needs substantial cleanup. This is not a reason to delete. Taking the article to AFD because of the disagreement over whether or not it should be merged is improper. Misplaced Pages is not Wiktionary. Merging all Star Trek article into single page lists with definitions is not what Misplaced Pages is for. Misplaced Pages is a encyclopedia. --Alpha Quadrant 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"AFD is not cleanup", sorry, but nobody suggested the article needed to be cleaned up. The article is lacking notability, plain and simple. A lot of these episodes are the same, no more notability in some of them other than a hairdressing award (no, really). WikiuserNI (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Merge all episode articles - Indeed, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia with a mechanism for determining which subjects require an entire article devoted to them. It appears that all of the first season episodes have their own articles at this point (and they have existed for quite awhile), so while they probably should all be merged back to the list of episodes and/or to the Season 1 article, it's unlikely that the status quo is going to overturned. None of these individual episodes appear to pass the notability threshold. The only coverage I can find about them (most of it is like this) proves that they exist, but not that they are notable. SnottyWong  23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to list of episodes Pretty clearly fails to meet notability requirements on its own. Refs are trivial, limitted to things like reviews and no indication this episode has made a notable impact on its own. -- ۩ Mask 01:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to list of episodes, nothing but plot summary, no indication that the episode is notable or has any substantive coverage. Seraphimblade 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to list of episodes per reasons mentioned by several people above. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't feel like typing a huge history of the "episode wars", but the wars are useless. Episode articles are the way popular shows have been organized on wikipedia for many years now. Let's write articles, improve articles, and source some BLPs instead. Proposing to "merge all episode articles" is a distraction to the project.--Milowent • 02:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I wanted to alert closing admin to this discussion, Talk:List_of_Star_Trek:_Enterprise_episodes#Merger_proposal, where a discussion about merging episodes of this series was proposed by WikiuserNI, and the additional discussion there is relevant to this AfD.--Milowent • 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to a combination article about the episodes, preserving sufficient content. Best compromise solution. So clearly the best that I cannot figure out why we keep arguing about articles like these.

Note: The article under discussion here has been listed in a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#More_input_for_merger.----Milowent • 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and discuss merger possibilities outside the AfD process, since there's currently a merge discussion underway. Fact is, just about any episode of any major network, cable, or syndicated show has reviews out there sufficient to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  This view has been routinely rejected in many, many AfDs. But you knew that. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• As for myself, I know nothing of the sort. Its a longstanding battleground with inconsistent outcomes, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Blackout!_(Ugly_Betty) (Feb 2010) couldn't even garner one delete vote.--Milowent • 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep all the episode articles for this series Millions of people watch these episodes, that makes them notable, not the opinion of whatever random credit bothered to review them. Having the entire Misplaced Pages held hostage by the whims of a small number of reviewers, is ridiculous. Nothing gained by deleting it, since if you don't like this sort of article you won't find it unless you are just looking for something to complain about and destroy. Don't care what the suggested guidelines say. Misplaced Pages is not rules, and if a rule interferes with something that would improve Misplaced Pages, ignore it. WP:IAR Dream Focus 05:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is quite unhelpful, the coverage of the series this episode belongs to is already being improved, holding a list of episode summaries on separate articles merely reduces the effectiveness of Misplaced Pages, by making it harder to find information quickly. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. If someone searched for the episode, they'd want to find the episode's article. If they wanted to find the series itself, they'd find it, and likewise to a season list. Dream Focus 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense. By having a season page, we can keep the details on that season, season themes and the episode summaries together. If you search, you'll find that too. What's the point in hold separate, expanded plot summaries? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's comments are extremely unhelpful when it comes to these sorts of discussion, as they rest on "i like it, so keep" and flawed IAR rationales rather than actual editorial policy and guideline, it will count for little when this discussion closes. The Misplaced Pages will be improved by removing endless fan content. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tarc's comments are also extremely unhelpful when it comes to these sorts of discusions, as they rest on "i don't like it, so delete" and flawed rationales that the project actually improves by removing endless fan content, when more such content is created every day than could be deleted in a year. Its a volunteer project, and that's reality.--Milowent • 14:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I only discussed aspects of notability and reliable sourcing. Yep, that surely just is an "idontlikeit" rationale for me "delete", eh? Facepalm Quite while yer behind, Milowent. Your response was pathetic less-than-edifying. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I always admire the wit of your uncivil comments.--Milowent • 15:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would hope your extremely unhelpful comments count for little when this discussion closes. You can not improve Misplaced Pages by removing content some people actually come here to read. And all policies have been met, and the guidelines only suggestions. Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules is a great policy to follow. We're here to maintain Misplaced Pages, not eliminate it. Episode articles like this have been around since the beginning of Misplaced Pages, and hopefully will remain. Dream Focus 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• IAR can't be invoked so you can simply get your Rescue Squadron-preferred ideology to carry the day at an AfD, sorry. If the subject matter is notable, prove it. If not, then it it is eligible for deletion. For fan repositories, we can point users to the memory alpha, not an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Notability is determined by consensus, which is the opinions of those around at the time to comment, as well as the opinions of the closing administrator. All required policies have been met. To prove its notable, I'd point out that millions of people watched it, that all the proof I'd need. If millions of people thought it notable enough to watch, it should be notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article about it. Dream Focus 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ahh, the old "notability is determined by consensus" vs. "XfD is not a vote" debate, eh? On some days you do win that debate...I've seen more that one 10keep-1delete discussion close as a keep despite the 10 arguments being slack-jawed absurdities. But when the numbers are closer, as this one is, then not-a-vote tends to rule the day, as there is more leeway to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments rather than be forced into bean-counting. As to the "millions of people watch it" argument, do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous that is? Millions of people watched Wii Fit Girl on youtube, yet she only gets a redirect. Millions of people know who Brian Peppers is, yet he remains a redlink. Sheep don't vote, as they say. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• can you please discuss only the afd, and try not to discuss the voters, or whether they are sheep, and try not to state which way the afd is going to go presumptively? it would help everyone. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, I had created a season page for these articles after having proposed a merge for them originally. I did of course check for a clean up when doing so, there is precious little. Notability seems far from assured, the article exists pretty much as a plot summary and an extended one at that. Delete as the season page already holds as much information in a more concise manner. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, no notability to be found for a routine episode. I can justify episode articles for pilots, finales, and others that can be demonstrated to be notable beyond fanboy sites (e.g. "there are four lights!, but this fails that. There's no need to keep this as a redirect, as there's nothing to retain from an article of simple plot summary (Act I, Act II? Jesus, this isn't Shakespeare). Just update the redirect at Fight or Flight to point to the episode list, if that is permissible per disambig guidelines. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• how is this vote different from a merge in its end result? Aisha9152 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• speedy keep this afd looks like it was created because of the merge discussion here . also i think precedent and there is a wiki project working on improving these episodes helps. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope that's not a bad faith assumption (regarding the reason for AfD), perhaps you might address the article itself instead? What precedent do you refer to? I see plenty of unnotable episode articles being merged due to a lack of notability, I feel this one can be easily deleted. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Best to retain all the episode articles as seperate entries per DreamFocus. Also per Aisha9152 and per the Colonel's well-grounded earlier speedy close of this debate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A non-admin keep and a plea to have as many episode articles as possible aren't great reasons to keep. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I added one source, and books such as this appear to provide some potential material as well. Paul Erik 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  Name-dropped in the beginning of a chapter of a fan guide? Yea. And by "yea" I mean "no". Tarc (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Handle Editorialy It's either a Keep or a merge which is another type of keep. Delete is not a viable option, so handle it on the talk pages or if that fails some form of content dispute resolution.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is deletion not viable? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's indisputable that it's either notable on its own, or notable as part of a larger article or list. It's either one or the other. If it's the second it gets turned into a redirect and deletion would be both unnecessary and undesirable. (i.e. attribution of any material that ends up merged.)--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, um, I kinda dispute it. a) There's already a one-liner description in the episode list, so there is nothing to attribute or reuse from the current article. b) We don't need to retain "Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)" for redirect/search purposes; a reader searching via title will hit the disambig page for the term, and from there can be pointed to the episode guide. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

True, you certainly have the right to dispute it. I guess if we want to be clearly technical it should read "In my opinion there's no valid dispute that..."--Cube lurker (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I take that back. You're not disputing the fact that I called indisputable. Your own words There's already a one-liner description in the episode list coincide with mine notable as part of a larger article or list. You're disputing the second part deletion would be both unnecessary and undesirable which although I feel is 100% accurate was not part of the indisputable statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• merge into Star Trek: Enterprise (Season 1). No sources showing notability. Can be later restored when/if sources are found (no, the mention in the fan guide doesn't make it notable). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• merge or delete but seeing that the only sourced third party content is that some critic said the episode "is one of the four best of the season", (if that doesnt fall under the category of "trivial passing coverage" I am not sure what does) there isnt actually much to merge. Fails WP:NActive Banana ( 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Question for those suggesting merge - What content is appropriate to merge? Is there a contention that the coverage at the List of episodes is insufficient? --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer in line with my original answer. This is an editorial decision. Keeping the history beneath a redirect would allow editors to discuss and merge based on consensus, maintaining attribution.

A question in return, what is the downside in a merge/redirect even if after discussion it does turn out that no content ends up transfered?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates