Content deleted Content added
Comments |
keep |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*'''Question'''. I don't understand several of the above !votes. What have ArbCom got to do with it? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Question'''. I don't understand several of the above !votes. What have ArbCom got to do with it? [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Re:Andy, Arbcom have put an injunction on (un)deleting/(un)merging characters and episodes of TV shows - you can see the injunction [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction|here]]. Re:Secret The injunction on the case says it was "Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC). ", this article was created a few hours before that so does fall under the injunction from my reading of it. [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
::Re:Andy, Arbcom have put an injunction on (un)deleting/(un)merging characters and episodes of TV shows - you can see the injunction [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction|here]]. Re:Secret The injunction on the case says it was "Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC). ", this article was created a few hours before that so does fall under the injunction from my reading of it. [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''' I have nothing to do with the ArbCom case, but I would say that irrespective of any injunction this should be kept anyway -- there is sufficient precedent already established on Wikipedia for individual episodes of notable TV dramas to get their own articles. --[[User:SJK|SJK]] ([[User talk:SJK|talk]]) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:09, 16 February 2008
Death Roe
A non-notable TV episode, no real world references. Article is just an infobox and plot reprise. Polly (Parrot) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the consensus on Wikipedia is that all episodes of notable shows should have an article. It is done this way for many shows already like The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, etc. Law & Order: Criminal Intent is a pretty notable show. --Amlebede (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Secret account 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge - There is no such consensus on wikipedia, the episodes of some shows can be well sourced and make a good article, this however is only a stub and does not really need a seperate article. --neonwhite user page talk 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per ArbCom. JuJube (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge is the direction I would take this and similar types of articles. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment note as this article was created after the injuction, I asked arbcom what to do with those articles. Thanks Secret account 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question. I don't understand several of the above !votes. What have ArbCom got to do with it? AndyJones (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Re:Andy, Arbcom have put an injunction on (un)deleting/(un)merging characters and episodes of TV shows - you can see the injunction here. Re:Secret The injunction on the case says it was "Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC). ", this article was created a few hours before that so does fall under the injunction from my reading of it. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep' I have nothing to do with the ArbCom case, but I would say that irrespective of any injunction this should be kept anyway -- there is sufficient precedent already established on Wikipedia for individual episodes of notable TV dramas to get their own articles. --SJK (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)