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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The Eclipse (Heroes)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Eclipse (Heroes) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has had issues since 2011 and they have not been addressed. There are five references four of them are there to give a rating of the episode, and they are slapped on the end of the article. It looks like they did this to avoid speedy deletion. Should be deleted and redirected to the season article. Previous editors have tried to address this and redirect to the season article but as of now there is not consensus. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I absolutely agree with delete - unequivocally fails GNG, and isn't there a part 2? It needs to be redirected as well. It's hard to believe we have editors saying 2 reviews satisfy GNG. ??? I hope we are not dealing with fancruft. Atsme 💬 📧 22:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom unless WP is now a clearinghouse for episode recaps from every flash in the pan TV show made since its inception. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 05:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, we have guidelines to determine what is notable. The fact that most popular television episodes have multiple RS reviews appears to bother you. I suggest you spend some time to study and internalize our deletion guidelines, as you appear to have a really poor grasp of them. Jclemens ( talk) 01:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep GNG is met by reviews already linked in the article, per Donaldd23. Jclemens ( talk) 01:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think there's more to it than that. Otherwise anything mentioned twice in a newspaper would be notable. As the nom noted, the sourcing appears to be a perfunctory gesture, w/ the real goal being "getting my episode recap into WP." Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 03:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains (Heroes) relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or merge/redirect to a season or episode list. I'm not convinced that two fairly routine reviews are sufficient to meet SIGCOV for any topic. I wouldn't accept it for a book or a movie, for example; I don't see why it's sufficient for a single episode. We also need to consider WP:NOPAGE when dealing with TV episodes - if the best that can be said about an episode even at the time of release is "it aired," does it really need its own page? Can it not be suitably covered in context in the season page? (Same rationale as for "Villains", but I think it applies here as well). ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- episode has sufficient RS coverage to meet WP policy requirements. matt91486 ( talk) 15:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    So I hear you that it has the required coverage but I'm interested to know if you think that coverage is sustained long enough to be notable? Not being a jerk just trying to get an idea of what is what. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 05:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian ( talk) 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: There's two reviews cited for the episode (four, if you count the reviews for the separate parts). Thus, GNG is met. That being said, someone really should expand upon the reception section with the given sources, and trim the plot section, because currently it gives the impression that the subject fails WP:PLOT, which doesn't make it look good in a deletion discussion like this, and was one of the reasons this was redirected in the first place, before being brought here. MoonJet ( talk) 11:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect - fails GNG, does not have even the minimum cited RS. I'm ok with a redirect to the main article Heroes, but it cannot exist in main space as a standalone based on the cited sources, two of which are the A.V. Club, part of the G/O Media family of sites—including The Onion, Gizmodo, Kotaku, etc. Seriously? How is this encyclopedic, much less worthy of a standalone article in an encyclopedia? Those reviews fail NEPISODE because they are purely plotline reviews. Sure, it's worthy of a listing in TV Guide - no problem, but an encyclopedia? Atsme 💬 📧 21:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Strikes + add-on – see full review below. 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    You are incorrect in your assessment of A.V. Club. It is considered a Reliable Source. See the list here: [1]. You should research the sources to determine their reliability before making assumptions and voting based on those incorrect assumptions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    First of all, I don't want fan cruft to be angry with me, but quite frankly I am not incorrect. WP:RSP is nothing more than an essay. The publisher of The Onion may well have some worthy material we can use via CONTEXTMATTERS, but this is not one of them – it is an entertainment division of a publisher who obviously considers reality a joke via The Onion, but that is just my opinion. Let's focus on WP:NOT which tells us we are not a directory, much less a TV Guide. WP is an encyclopedia - and perhaps WP:CIR is required to understand what an encyclopedia actually represents, or perhaps fan cruft can explain it to us. I'm not seeing a one in a million TV episode as a standalone to be a contribution to the "sum of all knowledge" unless that particular episode is actually notable - as in, inspiring articles in local and regional news media about its content, etc.. I haven't seen that in this situation. And here is another FYI for you, WP:RSP was the creation of a single editor with very little support. It was never an accepted guideline by the wider community. Sorry, but no - this article FAILS GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yes, it is an explanatory essay, but it links to FOUR discussions where it was determined that AV Club is a reliable source. Your opinion does NOT trump discussions of other editors where a decision was made. Go back and read the discussions. The "essay" merely summarizes the various discussions of various sources into one easily located site. Do you seriously think the list was created by that editor based on their opinion alone? That editor might not have even participated in the discussions where AV Club or any of the other sites listed. C'mon! FOUR discussions have determined that AV Club is a reliable source, and just because you think it isn't doesn't mean anything. Your opinion does not trump the consensus of the editors involved in the discussion. You think AV Club isn't reliable? Start another discussion. So, with reviews by AV Club and IGN (both of which have had discussions about them and both have been deemed reliable sources), that makes this article notable and passing WP:GNG. Consensus rules. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Beyond the reliability of a source issue, the article still fails GNG and NEPISODE. Let's start with the article history involving reverts of redirects, because every time a redirect is reverted, the article is added back to the NPP queue, and this article has had issues dating back to July 2011, and all this time, nothing has changed that warrants keeping it; rather, it has become a time sink.
  1. Redirected 2022-04-29
  2. Donaldd23 reverted - needs discussion
  3. Redirected again 2022-08-23
  4. again Donald23, added 2 sources
  5. AfD nom reason: This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. (July 2011) This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2011)
And here we are now with more reasons this article should be deleted:
  • The 4 sources fail to establish N per both GNG and NEPISODE. Why? Put simply, we have a total of 4 sources for 2 different episodes = a couple per episode, not multiple as required. The NBC link is unrecoverable, and was only a listing, so it does not count toward N. See the following per NEPISODE (my emphasis):

An episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired. Having a plot, episode-specific cast and crew or ratings and viewership numbers is sometimes redundant to similar information at a main article, season article, or an in-depth character article.

It goes on to explain the following which applies to the 2 reviews for each episode; i.e., all they talk about is the plotline:

Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot. This could include discussions of its broader impact. The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. While these may be used in episode articles that have already demonstrated notability, a reception section only comprising these is generally not adequately demonstrating coverage. See " Fire and Blood", " Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience", " Marge vs. the Monorail", or " Volcano" as examples of such articles.

Ironically, the 2 cited sources per episode discuss how bad the actual series and episodes are per the following two examples, beginning with Part 1 review by The A.V. Club Tonight's part one of a two-parter, though, wasn't half bad. Actually, it was: It was half-bad. Some plotlines flatlined, as usual, but some actually had me genuinely curious about next week and hoping "The Eclipse, Part 1" wasn't yet another upswing that's indicative of nothing. Graded C-, and then there is the IGN plotline review:
Part 2: What was the point? What did we learn from this power-stealing eclipse that we couldn't have found out some other, possibly more interesting way? The article fails GNG, the redirects are not resulting in noticeable improvement to warrant a standalone, so deletion is the proper action. These 2 episodes are already listed in List of Heroes episodes #44 + #45, and I no longer see a purpose for redirecting, only to have it reverted. Atsme 💬 📧 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'll note that the keeps are noting how NEPISODE and GNG are met by multiple reviews, while those opposed to keeping an article are attempting to move the notability bar higher in an appeal to non-policy, non-guideline "there should be MORE coverage" arguments. Jclemens ( talk) 01:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • confused face icon Just curious...how did you determine that 2 sources for each episode is considered "multiple", especially when those sources are nothing but aggregator coverage of plotlines? 2 = a couple for each episode, but if we combine the reviews in the 2 AV sources and 2 IGN sources in the same manner the article combined the 2 episodes, we end-up with only 2 RS (1 AV + 1 IGN) when there should be at least 6, a couple of which should cover more than the yada yada plotlines. I don't see anything in the delete votes that are raising the bar, but it does appear that the keeps want the bar lowered in order to meet GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 13:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Question To those saying delete: why exactly is redirecting not an acceptable option? Redirecting is common practice when it comes to non-notable episodes of notable shows (see Category:Redirects from episodes and its subcategories), people looking for the episode will still be navigated to a relevant page, editors wishing to expand the article upon gathering enough decent sources have at least a skeleton they can work with in the edit history, there's nothing in the article that warrants speedy deletion (as such copyright problems or harassment), and anyone could create the redirect immediately after deletion. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 02:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I already provided a valid reason above, but again, it already went through 2 redirects and 2 reverts. It is low volume in page views, and is already listed in List of Heroes episodes. We do not want to get in the habit of redirecting every episode of a TV series. Atsme 💬 📧 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If the redirects keep being undone, we can restore the redirects and lock the page; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thom Huge (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curious George 3: Back to the Jungle, both of which resulted in a redirect and perma-lock in response to the redirects being undone.
    • Even if it is low in page views, there is still a navigational benefit to having these redirects around; for example, it makes for a nice, clean link on a page like Eclipse (disambiguation).
    • Common practice is to create or at least have redirects for episodes even - no, especially - if they're already listed on a list of episodes. There's an entire category tree dedicated to these redirects that I pointed to above, most of which point to specific anchors on the list; am I to believe that all 20,000+ of them need to be deleted?
    • If, after all of that, you still think the title is not suitable for a redirect, you can take it to WP:RFD all the same should this discussion close with a redirect. I'll imagine it'll fail, given WP:CHEAP, but if you feel it's worth a shot, I'm not going to stop you.
    - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 23:06, 31 August 2022 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Eclipse_(Heroes)&oldid=1107853468"