292:. Far too soon to reopen an AFD. I think that reopening the whole episodes dispute is a gigantic waste of time. There is certainly enough information available to write short, decent articles -- adding verifiable third-party information like ratings (published weekly going back years and years in USA today, and daily for quite a few years in the NY Times), DVD availability, etc rather than interminable in-universe stuff. The articles on lesser-known professional athletes would be good models. The necessary information is out there -- but it's mostly print-based.
178:
sure. There's no indication that this episode was considered independently notable (and no, an episode guide with the words "New York Times" in the title doesn't mean that this was printed in the Times). Though some episodes of a TV show are memorable, such as "Who Shot J.R.?", the notability of a TV series doesn't mean that notability rubs off on every single episode of the series. This is a holdover from
Knowledge (XXG)'s TV guide days. There is a
347:. Nominator claims that "I can't single-handledly redirect this article without being accused of intentionally flying in the face of the previous AfD (seen this, done that)", but this is not true, a "no consensus" AfD has never been a mandate against redirecting or merging. Nominator has made no attempt either to boldly redirect this article or even discuss redirection, despite having
238:"walking outside the supermarket in shabby clothes pushing a shopping trolley", etc. There is some superficial paraphrasing, but it's clear that the text in the season article is not wholly original. Thus, we at least need to keep this article's page history. (And why not? "Frasier's Curse" is at least useful as a search term, no?)
252:
To what level does wikipedia/GFDL need to attribute information? Whole paragraphs or sentences - that is reasonable and common practise. Descriptive run-of-the-mill phrases of a few words - by that measure, wikipedia already and irreparably consists of unattributed non-original information entirely
177:
Toss the salad and scramble the eggs on this one. Looks like the last discussion ended up in a long argument and observations that people shouldn't utter the "m-word" in an AfD discussion. If anybody cared enough to mention it in the article about Season 6, they would have done so already, I'm
237:
use several exact phrases from the original article in the season article: "his divorce with Lilith and being left at the altar by Diane"; "not keen to go"; "unemployed, single and living with his father"; "a catastrophic job interview at another radio station on the same day"; "is very cross";
270:
I don't know what the cut-off point is for attributing information, but I think your text in the season article is close enough that we should play on the safe side. Some of those phrases are fairly long, and most could be worded differently with minimal effort.
402:
where a group of people put incredible amounts of time to use bold mergers against me, believe me when I say that I know when to risk feeding their bad-faith accusations for my long-term harm, and when I shouldn't (like here). Can editors of this AfD now please
389:
then, where no opposition (or any input) has been forthcoming for three months now. (But this article doesn't need to be merged, so it may as well be deleted, and AfD is the only forum to get that accomplished.) After the joys of
77:
363:("Consensus is that AfD is not for merge discussions and that this content is appropriate on Knowledge (XXG) in some form"). Nominator is also entirely ignoring opposition to his previous actions
137:
360:
72:
160:
already has a non-copied plot summary of equal depth so that nothing needs to be merged per the GFDL. No good reason left to keep this article and/or its page history, so
261:. But I can't single-handledly redirect this article without being accused of intentionally flying in the face of the previous AfD (seen this, done that). –
308:
253:(not to mention that plot summaries have a certain copyright anyway no matter what the wording). "Frasier's Curse" can serve as a search term through e.g.
416:
If you can find someone to confirm that the page history can be deleted without violating the GFDL, then I'd be willing to vote delete, just to end this.
148:, common sense tells me I should not do anything with this abandoned article without seeking input from AfD again. The article is still unencyclopedic (
407:, or will this seemingly unfixable, nonnotable, unencyclopedic article have to undergo a third AfD to get deleted (or at least redirected)? –
168:
195:
Why aren't comments like this forthcoming in disputes over porn star articles puffed full of awards nominations that aren't really notable?
104:
99:
108:
355:("Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD"),
425:
411:
380:
331:
312:
280:
265:
247:
224:
204:
190:
56:
17:
91:
304:
200:
386:
348:
351:. None of those articles needed to be deleted, and neither does this one. Nominator has completely ignored the advice of
444:
36:
300:
196:
443:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
391:
296:
367:. I'm not opposed to merging and redirecting, but I am opposed to abusing the AfD process like this, when
359:("Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research"), and the
344:
95:
327:
356:
186:
352:
421:
276:
243:
157:
385:
Thank God that the official merger discussion (linked from the merge proposal template) is at
376:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
87:
62:
149:
323:
215:
179:
182:
153:
417:
408:
272:
262:
239:
165:
372:
364:
50:
125:
349:
no compunction against boldly redirecting episodes from the previous four seasons
395:
437:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
322:: non-notable episode sufficiently covered on season 6 article.
399:
132:
121:
117:
113:
78:
Articles for deletion/Frasier's Curse (2nd nomination)
144:Since the last AfD from two months ago ended in a
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
447:). No further edits should be made to this page.
387:Talk:List_of_Frasier_episodes#Merger_of_episodes
181:for anyone interested in writing it up there.
8:
70:
73:Articles for deletion/Frasier's Curse
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
233:As I wrote at the previous AFD, you
69:
24:
405:judge the article on its merrits
369:deletion is entirely unnecessary
1:
361:previous closer's rationale
464:
426:18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
412:09:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
381:02:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
332:09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
313:22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
281:18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
266:07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
248:05:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
225:19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
205:20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
191:19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
169:11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
57:09:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
440:Please do not modify it.
343:this blatant attempt at
32:Please do not modify it.
257:!votes as well as just
214:per Mandsfor's points.
152:), still non-notable (
68:AfDs for this article:
301:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
255:delete & redirect
197:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
61:
158:Frasier (season 6)
44:The result was
316:
299:comment added by
455:
442:
315:
293:
221:
220:
135:
129:
111:
53:
34:
463:
462:
458:
457:
456:
454:
453:
452:
451:
445:deletion review
438:
294:
218:
216:
131:
102:
88:Frasier's Curse
86:
83:
66:
63:Frasier's Curse
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
461:
459:
450:
449:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
345:forum shopping
334:
317:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
228:
209:
208:
207:
142:
141:
82:
81:
80:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
460:
448:
446:
441:
435:
434:
427:
424:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
410:
406:
401:
397:
393:
388:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
291:
288:
282:
279:
278:
274:
269:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
246:
245:
241:
236:
232:
229:
227:
226:
222:
213:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
172:
171:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
139:
134:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
71:
64:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
439:
436:
420:
404:
368:
341:speedy close
340:
336:
319:
295:— Preceding
289:
275:
258:
254:
242:
234:
230:
223:
211:
174:
161:
146:no consensus
145:
143:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
150:WP:NOT#PLOT
357:WP:EPISODE
324:JamesBurns
353:WP:BEFORE
183:Mandsford
418:Zagalejo
409:sgeureka
309:contribs
297:unsigned
273:Zagalejo
263:sgeureka
259:redirect
240:Zagalejo
166:sgeureka
138:View log
373:DHowell
231:Comment
156:), and
105:protect
100:history
52:MBisanz
320:Delete
219:Yeller
212:Delete
175:Delete
162:Delete
133:delete
109:delete
46:delete
136:) – (
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
400:this
398:and
396:this
392:this
377:talk
365:here
339:and
337:Keep
328:talk
305:talk
290:Keep
201:talk
187:talk
164:. –
154:WP:N
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
422:^^^
277:^^^
244:^^^
235:did
394:,
379:)
371:.
330:)
311:)
307:•
217:Ol
203:)
189:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
48:.
375:(
326:(
303:(
199:(
185:(
140:)
130:(
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.