587:
no matter how much you twist and manipulate and misrepresent and distort and make this about me, it all boils down to the simple fact that not you nor anyone else arguing in favor of this article has offered even a single source that offers significant coverage of this individual episode. Time and time again I have made this simple request. Yet instead of meeting it, you choose instead to indulge in falsehoods and personal attacks. That speaks volumes. To lapse into the vernacular, shit or get off the pot. Either provide reliable sources that significantly cover the individual episode, or admit that there are none and shut the hell up.
300:, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Nothing in this article is written upon speculation of the future, but only is sound understanding of its 27-year-old past. No one has to jump through your hoop as you decide that something that at one time had coverage does not any more.
804:
What is really needed for this article is to write it in a more coherent and mature fashion. this is what we should be spending our efforts on. Concerning ourselves over what does or does not get a separate article is a waste of effort--writing the material properly & adequately is what is needed. if we didnt have to waste time defending them, we could do this.
404:
459:, deletion is the appropriate response. I would also note that the two essays you have cited have no standing or authority within Knowledge (XXG) and can never override actual policies and guidelines. If you have reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this individual episode as required under
1008:
An excellent source for the series as a whole. A poor one for this one, as it's the reviewer reviewing the series as a whole based on a sample of it. It's easy to mistake coverage of the series using the pilot as a sample or example as coverage of the pilot, but it leads to a disjointed, unimprovable
435:
state "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." This article can be improved. AfD is the wrong place
323:
Um, actually, you are the one who is bandying NTEMP about, and you're still misrepresenting it. NTEMP comes into play once an article demonstrably passes WP:N through the existence of older sources. NTEMP does not mean that we can assume that sources must exist because they are supposedly not online.
704:
So the obvious thing for the museum to do is to discard those useless minor bone fragment into the trash. Then when someone comes some time later with a few more minor bone fragments, they can throw those in the trash also. After a few years and hundreds of bone fragments similarly found and tossed,
586:
Clearly, you are an extreme inclusionist, who's probably used to manipulating and misrepresenting not only policies and guidelines but the actions of other editors in your desperate attempt to save the unsalvageable. that's fine, we need extreme inclusionists (for comic relief, if nothing else). But
291:
indeed review it. His dismissive argument is akin to someone asserting that dinosaurs did not exist because all one can can look in the present is meatless old bones. Sorry. No sale. The Times and the Globe are the bones... and proof enough, even in their meatless state to show that the beast at one
192:
in this instance, because if a presumption can be reasonably be made that sources once existed (pre-internet, pre-wiki), it is not required that we now jump through his hoops. It would be more prudent for the nom to prove that the initial pilot of a notable series following a notable film was itself
278:
them of any editor who disagrees with him. Since I have that reasonable presumption that they exist, as evidenced by the few that are still searchable, it is now up to the nom to prove they do not. The nom now has the burden to convince me and all editors that the episode was never reviewed. He has
803:
first, I think it just adequately meets the guidelines. The sources just have to cover the material, not be devoted to it. Second, no, I do not think there is consensus that the GNG has applicability to episodes or characters. the policy is WP:V, and the episode itself serves for the description.
667:
Appreciate the search for lost treasure. Like digging for the bones of a dinosaur. Hard to find the meat though after such a long time. Perhaps the few bones left might be indicative that the animal was actually alive at one point? Or do you have to actually touch the beast to believe it existed?
543:
First off, this is not about me, so your pathetic personal attacks and ridiculous manipulation of statistics have bugger-all to do with whether this individual article should be kept. Second, as long as you're bandying about statistics, note that in over 70% of the AFDs listed by the tool, either
332:
be sources, even though I have absolutely no tangible proof of those sources, but honest I swear you guys they're out there somewhere even though no one can find them." And, sorry, the burden of proof is on those who claim that sources exist to provide those sources. Your dinosaur metaphor, while
1056:
is notable, and even an insignificant amount of verifiable information about the pilot or first episode of a series is relevant to that notable topic. So a merge and redirect is the worst outcome that should ever be considered for such an article, which means this article should have never been
953:
ought to be immediately deleted because
Knowledge (XXG) is so obviously an utter pile of junk with all those unsourced articles lying around. Clearly no one will ever bother to find reliable sources for articles when "the 💕 that anyone can edit" has over 6% of its articles continuing to exist
572:
As for looking for sources, of course I looked for sources, so your phony and unsupportable claim that I didn't is just another attempt to shift focus away from the article and onto me. Your claim about what I did or didn't do in any other AFD is also a ridiculous falsehood. Make it about the
560:
status. And that does not take into account the dozens if not hundreds of articles which I have expanded, copy edited, reviewed for GA status, peer reviewed and reviewed for FA and FL status, nor the countless hours I have spent re-organizing categories, creating and revising templates and
1011:
And, on a technical point, there's no reason a reviewer couldn't have seen other episodes than the one aired before they aired on national television; how do you think there's a review for a show debuting the evening of March 4 in the paper doubtless delivered on the morning of March 4? -
511:
itself states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator has not done this in this case, and he rarely does this in the 719 articles he deleted. So I would appreciate it if you follow
822:
Oh please. As if this nomination is preventing anyone from searching for reliable sources. This article has been around for over a year. And I agree that sources do not have to be "devoted" to the article topic. There do need, however, to be sources that offer
403:) has been challenged since November 2008, still hasn't been established (where is the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"?), and likely can't be established based on the very meager results of Google
454:
The only way that this article can be improved is if there are reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual episode. Since there appear to be no such sources and thus the article cannot be brought into compliance with our
169:
allows the presumption that 27 years ago, pre-internet and pre-wiki, the series, and more importantly the pilot episode of that series, recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. I do not know how the nom overlooked it, but even the
233:
states that reliable sources generated at any time remain reliable sources for purposes of notability and that once those sources establish it, newly-generated or ongoing sources are not required. But, it requires that the subject meet
224:
this is a trivial reference, not significant coverage. "There are probably sources" is not a legitimate argument, as that claim could be made for any subject. It's also suspect given that the NYT article is pre-Internet. Regardless,
827:
of the subject. The notion that an enormous swath of articles is somehow immune to sourcing requirements is ludicrous. Show me anything in any policy or guideline that exempts episode articles from sourcing requirements.
580:, that is an editing policy and does not discuss AFD at all in the section you cite. It deals with preserving existing content within an article, not deleting the article entirely. Another misrepresentation on your part.
485:
add reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the individual episode, because all I do is put up articles for deletion, I rarely, if ever attempt to improve those articles before putting them up for
493:"Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading."
138:
based on the TV series are notable, but the notability of the series and the film do not confer separate independent notability to each individual episode of the series. Those who are inclined to !vote
785:
And the reliable sources that are significantly about this individual episode are...which exactly? Or do you think that our general notability guideline does not apply to this article, and if so, why?
723:
The obvious thing for the museum to do is to let someone whose business is storing minor fragments of bone store them, and deal with the skeletons they can display. Exactly as
Knowledge (XXG) covers
270:
That a very few pre-wiki pre-internet sources are searchable online of a 27-year-old pilot episode, allows reasonble expectation that others exist and is completely within the meaning and intenet of
399:) by definition (user-edited content), the New York Times article is almost completely about the show and not about the pilot, and the fourth source just verifies the premiere date. Notability (
87:
82:
374:
The notability of the people involved does not confer notability onto the individual television episode. Notability does not transfer from people to the projects in which they were involved.
91:
727:
and leaves collections of trivia or direct observation of the subject to other projects. That some information should be saved does not mean
Knowledge (XXG) is the project to save it. -
931:
Retaining articles for which no reliable sources exist does not improve the project, and is in fact detrimental to the project because it encourages the creation of more such articles.
74:
120:
691:
It wouldn't matter for a natural history museum if the animal was alive at one point. You can't exhibit a skeleton if no-one has ever found more than a few minor bone fragments. –
408:
544:
deletion or redirection resulted, so I guess those nominations were not so out left field after all. But as long as we're playing the statistics game, I have created
412:
982:
78:
337:
is "jumping through hoops." Maybe you should consider contributing to a project that doesn't expect that its information have sources and you'd be happier.
765:, and then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a list of episodes Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD.
521:
I can't imagine how much content this editor could have created, if he would spend as much time referencing articles, instead of attempting to delete
518:"When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion"
70:
62:
569:. So as far as Knowledge (XXG) street cred is concerned, I think I've established it so let's hope you're all done trying to make this about me.
415:. No prejudice against recreation if someone can actually prove that a proper article can be written, although I doubt this is even possible. –
274:. Not searchable online... but in libraries or subscription only archives. They exist. Period. And need not to be brought forward because a nom
1070:
1032:
1003:
963:
940:
922:
896:
874:
841:
815:
794:
776:
747:
714:
695:
682:
658:
636:
596:
534:
472:
445:
419:
383:
365:
346:
314:
258:
207:
156:
56:
1027:
908:
is a guideline. There are ALWAYS exceptions to guideline if it serves to improve wiki. This is why each guideline begins with such caveat.
742:
631:
552:. I have also substantially expanded well over a dozen additional articles to GA status and been instrumental in promoting one article to
183:
should be prepared to provide independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this particular episode on its own, per
143:
should be prepared to provide independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this particular episode on its own, per
1061:
to force merge or redirect decisions, or to delete verifiable content about a notable topic, even if it might be in the wrong article.
1052:. Knowledge (XXG) is not improved by tossing away small pieces of verifiable information about notable subjects. We all agree that the
17:
950:
130:- there are no reliable sources that this particular individual television episode is independently notable. Yes, the television
548:, which apparently doesn't include articles that I created that have been deleted. Of the articles I created, 12 are currently
989:
on March 4, 1982. It could not have been about the other episodes, as they had not yet aired. Add it to the Times and Globe.
870:
583:
As far as discussing on the talk page, when there are no reliable sources about a subject, what is there to discuss? Nothing.
298:
If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic
832:
specifically states that articles on fiction need secondary sources and that they must meet the notability pre-requisite.
1085:
36:
174:
428:
358:
It was also covered in the Boston Globe and it involves significant involvement of several notable individuals. -
998:
917:
677:
648:
and only one single (trivial) mention came up. In keeping with other findings above, I don't see how it can meet
309:
202:
1084:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1023:
738:
627:
241:. "I just know there must be sources out there somewhere so this is notable" is a complete mis-reading both of
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
986:
363:
508:
561:
participating in other aspects of
Knowledge (XXG) beyond AFD. And how many articles have you created? Oh,
1058:
432:
577:
515:
499:
490:
279:
the burden to prove that media ignored the episode and the stars and the event of it first airing. The
991:
910:
670:
302:
195:
1044:
705:
the museum has managed to receive and discard an entire skeleton. What a great way to run a museum!
1013:
728:
617:
936:
892:
864:
837:
790:
592:
468:
379:
359:
342:
254:
152:
293:
271:
246:
230:
226:
189:
166:
1066:
959:
710:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
653:
829:
649:
613:
165:
this article on a 27-year-old pilot episode of a (then) notable television series, because
333:
mildly entertaining, is meaningless. Sorry to hear that you think the minimal standard of
981:
The series premiered March 4, 1982. That was the airing of the pilot episode. Here is an
557:
553:
549:
396:
334:
505:"Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to: (list)
545:
530:
496:
But since you want a policy, which trumps the mere guideline of notability, here it is:
441:
280:
171:
905:
884:
724:
460:
456:
400:
242:
235:
221:
184:
144:
932:
888:
860:
833:
811:
786:
772:
692:
588:
464:
416:
375:
338:
250:
148:
1062:
955:
706:
562:
522:
284:
50:
108:
220:
and includes exactly two sentences that are specifically about this episode. Per
1057:
brought to AfD. I'm recommending keep because I'm tired of AfD being used as a
645:
292:
time shook the earth. That's a given. And as long as you wish to bandy about
526:
437:
806:
767:
229:
does not mean that editors may assume that sources exist pre-Internet.
427:
per Mgm and
MichaelQSchmidt. In response to Sgeureka and Otto4711,
193:
never reviewed before or upon its release. Thank you and regards,
1078:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
177:
the pilot episode. And answering the nom's declaration that "
481:
i.e.: "The only way that this article can be improved is if
491:
Knowledge (XXG):DONTLIKE#That.27s_only_a_guideline_or_essay
115:
104:
100:
96:
614:
significant coverage in reliable, independent sources
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1088:). No further edits should be made to this page.
188:", I politely suggest he pay more attention to
395:Two of the four used sources are unreliable (
8:
644:—I went trawling for more print sources via
296:, let's all look at it together, shall we? "
612:. It's easy to forget the "significant" in
71:A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)
63:A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
216:The linked NYT article is about the
24:
859:per DGG - it is a pilot as well.
179:Those who are inclined to !vote
725:the articles the sources allow
573:nomination, not the nominator.
1:
1071:05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
1033:08:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
1004:08:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
964:05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
941:10:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
923:18:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
897:16:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
875:07:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
842:06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
816:20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
795:16:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
777:04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
748:10:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
715:05:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
696:07:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
683:06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
659:22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
637:21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
597:19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
535:18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
473:18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
446:18:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
420:12:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
384:16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
366:11:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
347:10:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
315:06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
259:17:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
208:07:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
157:01:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
57:00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
457:general notability guideline
287:are indicators that others
1105:
509:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
883:There is no exception to
655:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1081:Please do not modify it.
979:Another chuck of bone...
516:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion
436:to clean up an article.
32:Please do not modify it.
987:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
949:I guess those 165,000+
463:, please present them.
1009:article if you do so.
546:at least 273 articles
887:for pilot episodes.
825:significant coverage
616:, but it's there. -
175:specifically praised
134:is notable and the
525:editors articles.
393:Redirect or Delete
44:The result was
1031:
954:without sources.
746:
635:
335:reliable sourcing
1096:
1083:
1021:
1019:
994:
913:
736:
734:
673:
656:
625:
623:
429:WP:INTROTODELETE
305:
198:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1086:deletion review
1079:
1015:
992:
983:article written
911:
730:
671:
654:
619:
556:and another to
554:featured status
489:Please follow:
303:
196:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1102:
1100:
1091:
1090:
1074:
1073:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1010:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
944:
943:
926:
925:
900:
899:
878:
877:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
798:
797:
780:
779:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
718:
717:
699:
698:
686:
685:
662:
661:
639:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
584:
581:
574:
570:
538:
537:
519:
513:
506:
497:
494:
487:
476:
475:
449:
448:
422:
389:
388:
387:
386:
369:
368:
352:
351:
350:
349:
318:
317:
281:New York Times
264:
263:
262:
261:
211:
210:
172:New York Times
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1101:
1089:
1087:
1082:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1029:
1025:
1020:
1018:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
1001:
1000:
996:
995:
988:
984:
980:
977:
976:
965:
961:
957:
952:
948:
947:
946:
945:
942:
938:
934:
930:
929:
928:
927:
924:
921:
920:
919:
915:
914:
907:
904:
903:
902:
901:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
881:
880:
879:
876:
872:
869:
866:
862:
858:
855:
854:
843:
839:
835:
831:
826:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
813:
809:
808:
802:
801:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
781:
778:
774:
770:
769:
764:
761:
760:
749:
744:
740:
735:
733:
726:
722:
721:
720:
719:
716:
712:
708:
703:
702:
701:
700:
697:
694:
690:
689:
688:
687:
684:
681:
680:
679:
675:
674:
666:
665:
664:
663:
660:
657:
651:
647:
643:
640:
638:
633:
629:
624:
622:
615:
611:
608:
607:
598:
594:
590:
585:
582:
579:
575:
571:
568:
564:
559:
558:featured list
555:
551:
550:Good articles
547:
542:
541:
540:
539:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
514:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
488:
484:
483:other editors
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
434:
430:
426:
423:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
364:
361:
357:
354:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
327:
322:
321:
320:
319:
316:
313:
312:
311:
307:
306:
299:
295:
290:
286:
282:
277:
273:
269:
266:
265:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
232:
228:
223:
219:
215:
214:
213:
212:
209:
206:
205:
204:
200:
199:
191:
187:
186:
180:
176:
173:
168:
164:
161:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
133:
129:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1080:
1077:
1053:
1049:
1040:
1039:
1016:
999:
997:
990:
978:
918:
916:
909:
867:
856:
824:
805:
766:
762:
731:
678:
676:
669:
641:
620:
609:
566:
502:
482:
433:WP:POTENTIAL
424:
392:
355:
329:
325:
324:"Oh, I just
310:
308:
301:
297:
288:
285:Boston Globe
275:
267:
238:
217:
203:
201:
194:
182:
178:
162:
140:
135:
131:
127:
126:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
578:WP:PRESERVE
500:WP:PRESERVE
425:Strong keep
1059:forum shop
1045:WP:SARCASM
646:LexisNexis
1014:A Man In
729:A Man In
618:A Man In
567:ambitious
563:two stubs
486:deletion"
1028:past ops
1024:conspire
993:Schmidt,
951:articles
933:Otto4711
912:Schmidt,
889:Otto4711
871:contribs
861:Casliber
834:Otto4711
787:Otto4711
743:past ops
739:conspire
693:sgeureka
672:Schmidt,
632:past ops
628:conspire
589:Otto4711
465:Otto4711
417:sgeureka
376:Otto4711
339:Otto4711
304:Schmidt,
294:WP:NTEMP
272:WP:NTEMP
268:Comment:
251:Otto4711
247:WP:NTEMP
231:WP:NTEMP
227:WP:NTEMP
197:Schmidt,
190:WP:NTEMP
167:WP:NTEMP
149:Otto4711
121:View log
1063:DHowell
985:in the
956:DHowell
707:DHowell
576:As for
413:Scholar
276:demands
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
1054:series
1041:Delete
830:WP:WAF
650:WP:GNG
642:Delete
610:Delete
565:. How
503:Policy
328:there
218:series
132:series
128:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
1017:Bl♟ck
732:Bl♟ck
621:Bl♟ck
512:WP:N.
409:Books
397:WP:RS
239:first
136:films
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1067:talk
1050:Keep
1043:per
960:talk
937:talk
906:WP:N
893:talk
885:WP:N
865:talk
857:Keep
838:talk
812:talk
791:talk
773:talk
763:Keep
711:talk
652:. --
593:talk
531:talk
527:Ikip
469:talk
461:WP:N
442:talk
438:Ikip
431:and
411:and
405:News
401:WP:N
380:talk
356:Keep
343:talk
330:must
326:know
283:and
255:talk
245:and
243:WP:N
236:WP:N
222:WP:N
185:WP:N
181:keep
163:Keep
153:talk
145:WP:N
141:keep
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
807:DGG
768:DGG
523:719
360:Mgm
289:did
1069:)
1026:-
962:)
939:)
895:)
873:)
840:)
814:)
793:)
775:)
741:-
713:)
630:-
595:)
533:)
471:)
444:)
407:,
382:)
345:)
257:)
249:.
155:)
147:.
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
1065:(
1047:.
1030:)
1022:(
958:(
935:(
891:(
868:·
863:(
836:(
810:(
789:(
771:(
745:)
737:(
709:(
634:)
626:(
591:(
529:(
467:(
440:(
378:(
362:|
341:(
253:(
151:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.