| Revision as of 13:37, 27 June 2006 editNscheffey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,278 edits →[]: Delete← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:08, 24 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,664 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (7x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was: all appear to have already been '''redirected''' to ], and the numerous arguments here for deletion or merging support that. I feel it should be noted that there are ] on Misplaced Pages, let alone binding precedents. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Nominating this and several other articles: | Nominating this and several other articles: | ||
| Line 11: | Line 19: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] (a ''second'' article on the same episode!) | |||
| *] | |||
| All of the above are episodes of '']'', the durable old 1969-1971 Saturday morning cartoon. While I'm among the group that beleives that ''no'' individual episode of any television show (unless it changed history in some significant form or fashion) deserves an encyclopedia article, fanboys obviously beg to differ. However, articles for episodes of '']'' and '']'' ususally have at least some sort of encyclopedic information on production, referecnes, etc. These articles do not do such (they read very much like cut and paste jobs from TV.com or somewhere similar). Although I've loved ''Scooby-Doo'' cartoons since I was a baby, there's no way (without serious reaching and/or original research) that anything sufficiently encyclopedic could ever be drummed up for individual articles for the show's episodes. There's nothing to distinguish each episode from another on any artistic or scholarly level, and therefore there is no point in writing seperate articles for them. --] 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | All of the above are episodes of '']'', the durable old 1969-1971 Saturday morning cartoon. While I'm among the group that beleives that ''no'' individual episode of any television show (unless it changed history in some significant form or fashion) deserves an encyclopedia article, fanboys obviously beg to differ. However, articles for episodes of '']'' and '']'' ususally have at least some sort of encyclopedic information on production, referecnes, etc. These articles do not do such (they read very much like cut and paste jobs from TV.com or somewhere similar). Although I've loved ''Scooby-Doo'' cartoons since I was a baby, there's no way (without serious reaching and/or original research) that anything sufficiently encyclopedic could ever be drummed up for individual articles for the show's episodes. There's nothing to distinguish each episode from another on any artistic or scholarly level, and therefore there is no point in writing seperate articles for them. --] 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 21: | Line 31: | ||
| *****Seconded, especially when there are many, like a spilled jar of jelly beans. Let's put them back in the jar. ] 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *****Seconded, especially when there are many, like a spilled jar of jelly beans. Let's put them back in the jar. ] 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ******Exactly my point. Can you imagine three-hundred and seventy-one articles about ''Scooby-Doo'' episodes? They fcould all be written with a template, with next-to-no modifications. And this is coming from someone who's probably seen at least three-hundred of those episodes. --] 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ******Exactly my point. Can you imagine three-hundred and seventy-one articles about ''Scooby-Doo'' episodes? They fcould all be written with a template, with next-to-no modifications. And this is coming from someone who's probably seen at least three-hundred of those episodes. --] 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *****I'd imagine that notability isn't an issue when it comes to ''Scooby-Doo''. |
*****I'd imagine that notability isn't an issue when it comes to ''Scooby-Doo''. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| ******Notability is ''always'' an issue in Misplaced Pages. --] 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ******Notability is ''always'' an issue in Misplaced Pages. --] 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *******Yes, somewhat unfortunately. To thnk that it's seriously an issue with episodes of ''Scooby-Doo'', however, is somewhat hard to swallow. It's not like we're talking a little-known ] series or some incredibly minor actress. --] <small>]</small> 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *******Yes, somewhat unfortunately. To thnk that it's seriously an issue with episodes of ''Scooby-Doo'', however, is somewhat hard to swallow. It's not like we're talking a little-known ] series or some incredibly minor actress. --] <small>]</small> 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 28: | Line 38: | ||
| *********Expanding the episode guide to include short synopses would eliminate the need for idividual episode articles. --] 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *********Expanding the episode guide to include short synopses would eliminate the need for idividual episode articles. --] 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' Added "]" to the list. --] 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Added "]" to the list. --] 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Shows should be allowed. ] 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | <s>*'''Keep'''. Shows should be allowed.</s> ] 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **The show ''is'' allowed. The episodes shouldn't be. --] 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | **The show ''is'' allowed. The episodes shouldn't be. --] 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***'''Merge all''' into ]. Right, probably a good way to have some info on it. ] 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' no evidence of being a copyvio (yet); episodes are from a notable television show --] |
*'''Keep''' no evidence of being a copyvio (yet); episodes are from a notable television show --]] 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' the fact that a TV show is notable doesn't make every single individual episode notable (or interesting, or useful, or anything but fancruft). Do any of these episodes have any claim to fame beyond the fact that they existed? ] 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' the fact that a TV show is notable doesn't make every single individual episode notable (or interesting, or useful, or anything but fancruft). Do any of these episodes have any claim to fame beyond the fact that they existed? ] 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete all''', just because a TV show is notable doesn't mean all its episodes are notable. None of these episode articles assert notability, and are simply synopses without context. Seeing as the articles are only a paragraph long each, if someone can prove the episodes are somehow notable, I wouldn't object to merging them to season articles. --''']''' <small>]</small> 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete all''', just because a TV show is notable doesn't mean all its episodes are notable. None of these episode articles assert notability, and are simply synopses without context. Seeing as the articles are only a paragraph long each, if someone can prove the episodes are somehow notable, I wouldn't object to merging them to season articles. --''']''' <small>]</small> 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete all''' per Coredesat and Opabinia. < |
*'''Delete all''' per Coredesat and Opabinia. <span style="color: Green;">—</span>''']''' 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge into One Article''' The television show may be notable, but when's the last time you referred to an episode of '']'' its official title? One article for each list of episodes would suffice. ]]] 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Merge into One Article''' The television show may be notable, but when's the last time you referred to an episode of '']'' its official title? One article for each list of episodes would suffice. ]]] 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' to ]. If these end up being kept, perhaps ] will be useful. :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' to ]. If these end up being kept, perhaps ] will be useful. :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' per Mangojuice. It's funny 'cause it's true. –] ] 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' per Mangojuice. It's funny 'cause it's true. –] ] 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' I believe there is potential here, as has been said there is nothing wrong with leaving articles in this form if they will be developed. Wait and see I think. ] 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' I believe there is potential here, as has been said there is nothing wrong with leaving articles in this form if they will be developed. Wait and see I think. ] 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 42: | Line 53: | ||
| :*'''Comment''' Two wrongs don't make a right! There are probably many articles that warrant deletion, are you suggesting until someone comes up with a full and complete list, NO article should ever be deleted? As to the arguement about a show being notable, hence episodes are notable - where do we stop? Are individual scenes in a notable show notable? As this is an animation, would individual ] be notable? I think not. '''Delete'''. ] 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | :*'''Comment''' Two wrongs don't make a right! There are probably many articles that warrant deletion, are you suggesting until someone comes up with a full and complete list, NO article should ever be deleted? As to the arguement about a show being notable, hence episodes are notable - where do we stop? Are individual scenes in a notable show notable? As this is an animation, would individual ] be notable? I think not. '''Delete'''. ] 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::*No one's arguing for such a ]. At the moment, nothing has been provided that these articles don't deserve to exist except that they're short. These aren't game show episodes or daily soaps, they're episodes of a TV in which no new episodes are going to be made. --] <small>]</small> 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ::*No one's arguing for such a ]. At the moment, nothing has been provided that these articles don't deserve to exist except that they're short. These aren't game show episodes or daily soaps, they're episodes of a TV in which no new episodes are going to be made. --] <small>]</small> 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::*'''Comment''' - Errr ... may I ask when and where anyone's argued for articles on individual cels? I'm sure we can stick to the AfD at hand for the time being. That being said, I was pretty explicit with what I said in the first place. Misplaced Pages works by clear consensus, and the clear consensus is that individual episode articles are acceptable. Frankly, I don't see offhand what makes ] eps notable, and SD eps not. ] 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' into a single article. The existence of bad articles is not an excuse for the creation of bad articles. --- ] | *'''Merge''' into a single article. The existence of bad articles is not an excuse for the creation of bad articles. --- ] | ||
| *'''Delete All''' – Each article is simply a one-paragraph plot synopsis with no additional information or encyclopedic value whatsoever. --] 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete All''' – Each article is simply a one-paragraph plot synopsis with no additional information or encyclopedic value whatsoever. --] 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' into single article. It's not that we should delete because they are short, it's because they have no potential to become real articles. Can anyone honestly imagine ] being developed to the level of an article like ]? I loved Scooby, but the episodes were as ]. Stubs should be little seeds waiting to grow, which these are not. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' into single article. It's not that we should delete because they are short, it's because they have no potential to become real articles. Can anyone honestly imagine ] being developed to the level of an article like ]? I loved Scooby, but the episodes were as ]. Stubs should be little seeds waiting to grow, which these are not. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **I find it interesting that you pick one of the most famous Seinfeld episodes to make your point. Sure, it won't be "The Contest," but it could be "]." --] <small>]</small> 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Ok, I see your point. You're right, the most famous episode of the most famous TV show was a bad example. My problem with scooby is that all the episodes have the ], and there are hundreds of them. Other shows' episode pages just seem to provide much more information and potential for expansion. Am I off base here? --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****You make a perfectly valid point, certainly. The point, however, is that, yes, right now they're kinda short and arguably crappy, but this isn't some random show that no one knows, it's ''Scooby Doo'', arguably one of the most popular cartoons of its time, if not all time. I'm inclusionist when it comes to television shows, yes, but this isn't, I dunno, '']''. --] <small>]</small> 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' all. While the existing articles are still stubs, merely ''being a stub'' is hardly a good reason to delete articles - the subject is encyclopaedic enough. ] 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete or Merge'''. ] 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Speedy Delete All''' <nowiki>{{db-nocontext}} </nowiki> ] 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Important to note that the articles actually provide context. --] <small>]</small> 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Important to note that all Scooby Doo,Where Are You! episodes are very similar to each other to the point of generating a kind of brainwashing effect ] 03:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' into ] for now, if anyone decides to expand them further they can be separated again. ] 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''', second choice '''Delete'''. The show is notable. However, as many have mentioned above, any descriptions of the episodes not only are, but would have to be, very similar to each other. There is no point in having separate articles that say essentially the same thing. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge all'''; the only thing that splitting information up like this does is make it harder for people to read.<br />Some people may think that popular topics somehow "deserve" to have a lot of distinct articles. They don't: what they deserve is ''high quality'' articles, of whatever number is needed to provide that quality. Where an article is so long that it becomes awkward to read it, it is an improvement to break it up; when articles are so short that it becomes awkward to navigate them, it is an improvement to merge them. It's not like merging these would even result in any information being lost, let alone any knowledge. So what's the problem? — ] <small>]</small> 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge all''' , for the love of God, as per jelly bean in jar argument. ] 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Delete All''' or '''Merge All''' as above. ] 03:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge all''' per Haeleth. Doocruft. You could redirect to one article that just says "Plot summary - Mystery Machine/spooky location/scare#1/clue#1/jinkies/scare#2/clue#2/zoinks/"me and Daph will go this way"/running down corridor/comedy double act/only other character in cartoon is revealed as ghost/pesky kids/soda bar/Scoooby Doooby Dooo" --] 07:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I was bold enough to (re)create ] with plot summaries. Damned if that wasn't the longest game of ] I've ever played. --] 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' and '''Expand''' These are notable and more information should be added to bring them up to par with the Family Guy or Simpsons episodes. --] 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge all''', per Haeleth. ] 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 11:08, 24 March 2023
- 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 of the debate was: all appear to have already been redirected to List of Scooby-Doo, Where are You! episodes, and the numerous arguments here for deletion or merging support that. I feel it should be noted that there are no binding decisions on Misplaced Pages, let alone binding precedents. --Sam Blanning 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What a Night For a Knight
Nominating this and several other articles:
- A Clue for Scooby Doo
- Hassle in the Castle
- Mine Your Own Business
- Decoy for a Dognapper
- The Backstage Rage
- A Gaggle of Galloping Ghosts
- Which Witch is Which
- That's Snow Ghost
- Jeepers It's the Creeper
- Haunted House Hang-Up
- What a Knight for a Knight (a second article on the same episode!)
- A Tiki Scare Is No Fair
All of the above are episodes of Scooby-Doo, Where are You!, the durable old 1969-1971 Saturday morning cartoon. While I'm among the group that beleives that no individual episode of any television show (unless it changed history in some significant form or fashion) deserves an encyclopedia article, fanboys obviously beg to differ. However, articles for episodes of Family Guy and The Simpsons ususally have at least some sort of encyclopedic information on production, referecnes, etc. These articles do not do such (they read very much like cut and paste jobs from TV.com or somewhere similar). Although I've loved Scooby-Doo cartoons since I was a baby, there's no way (without serious reaching and/or original research) that anything sufficiently encyclopedic could ever be drummed up for individual articles for the show's episodes. There's nothing to distinguish each episode from another on any artistic or scholarly level, and therefore there is no point in writing seperate articles for them. --FuriousFreddy 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Or perhaps some daring could create List of Scooby Doo episodes. AdamBiswanger1 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've already been that daring (fool). Scooby-Doo is the main article for all incarnations of the show, and all the little "sub-names" (e.g., Scooby-Doo, Where are You!) are expanded episode lists. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, assuming they're not copyvios. Notable TV shows should have notable episode articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- ...not if they're just synopses with no other information. If someone writes something meaningful and encyclopedic (and I'd love to see them try), then we can reevaluate. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with stubs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's something (plenty) wrong with stubs that don't establish individual notablility beyond existence. --FuriousFreddy 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded, especially when there are many, like a spilled jar of jelly beans. Let's put them back in the jar. AdamBiswanger1 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. Can you imagine three-hundred and seventy-one articles about Scooby-Doo episodes? They fcould all be written with a template, with next-to-no modifications. And this is coming from someone who's probably seen at least three-hundred of those episodes. --FuriousFreddy 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd imagine that notability isn't an issue when it comes to Scooby-Doo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs)
- Notability is always an issue in Misplaced Pages. --FuriousFreddy 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, somewhat unfortunately. To thnk that it's seriously an issue with episodes of Scooby-Doo, however, is somewhat hard to swallow. It's not like we're talking a little-known Showtime series or some incredibly minor actress. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- ...but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository for episode synopses. If that's the case, I'll quit right now and contribute my writing skills elsewhere. I beleive that Scooby-Doo is, of course, a notable enough show to deserve an encyclopedia article here, but sepearte articles for each episode of this particular show, to be nice about it, absurd. --FuriousFreddy 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Aside from notability, it's always a good idea to merge related, stubby articles. I don't see any reason why these brief synopses warrant independence. AdamBiswanger1 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Expanding the episode guide to include short synopses would eliminate the need for idividual episode articles. --FuriousFreddy 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, somewhat unfortunately. To thnk that it's seriously an issue with episodes of Scooby-Doo, however, is somewhat hard to swallow. It's not like we're talking a little-known Showtime series or some incredibly minor actress. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Notability is always an issue in Misplaced Pages. --FuriousFreddy 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded, especially when there are many, like a spilled jar of jelly beans. Let's put them back in the jar. AdamBiswanger1 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's something (plenty) wrong with stubs that don't establish individual notablility beyond existence. --FuriousFreddy 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with stubs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- ...not if they're just synopses with no other information. If someone writes something meaningful and encyclopedic (and I'd love to see them try), then we can reevaluate. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Added "Haunted House Hang-Up" to the list. --FuriousFreddy 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*Keep. Shows should be allowed. Green caterpillar 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The show is allowed. The episodes shouldn't be. --FuriousFreddy 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge all into Scooby-doo. Right, probably a good way to have some info on it. Green caterpillar 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The show is allowed. The episodes shouldn't be. --FuriousFreddy 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no evidence of being a copyvio (yet); episodes are from a notable television show --TBCTaLk?!? 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the fact that a TV show is notable doesn't make every single individual episode notable (or interesting, or useful, or anything but fancruft). Do any of these episodes have any claim to fame beyond the fact that they existed? Opabinia regalis 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, just because a TV show is notable doesn't mean all its episodes are notable. None of these episode articles assert notability, and are simply synopses without context. Seeing as the articles are only a paragraph long each, if someone can prove the episodes are somehow notable, I wouldn't object to merging them to season articles. --Coredesat talk 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per Coredesat and Opabinia. —EdGl 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into One Article The television show may be notable, but when's the last time you referred to an episode of Scooby-Doo, Where are You! its official title? One article for each list of episodes would suffice. joturner 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Scooby-Doo episodes. If these end up being kept, perhaps User:Mangojuice/scoobydoo episode will be useful. :) Mangojuice 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Mangojuice. It's funny 'cause it's true. –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I believe there is potential here, as has been said there is nothing wrong with leaving articles in this form if they will be developed. Wait and see I think. SM247 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nomination. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While I agree with the nom's sentiments, the fact is that there are many, many shows for which each and every episode is reflected in Misplaced Pages articles. I recommend that those voting to delete work to change the consensus about that practice. RGTraynor 08:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Two wrongs don't make a right! There are probably many articles that warrant deletion, are you suggesting until someone comes up with a full and complete list, NO article should ever be deleted? As to the arguement about a show being notable, hence episodes are notable - where do we stop? Are individual scenes in a notable show notable? As this is an animation, would individual cel be notable? I think not. Delete. Markb 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- No one's arguing for such a slippery slope. At the moment, nothing has been provided that these articles don't deserve to exist except that they're short. These aren't game show episodes or daily soaps, they're episodes of a TV in which no new episodes are going to be made. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Errr ... may I ask when and where anyone's argued for articles on individual cels? I'm sure we can stick to the AfD at hand for the time being. That being said, I was pretty explicit with what I said in the first place. Misplaced Pages works by clear consensus, and the clear consensus is that individual episode articles are acceptable. Frankly, I don't see offhand what makes Simpsons eps notable, and SD eps not. RGTraynor 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into a single article. The existence of bad articles is not an excuse for the creation of bad articles. --- GWO
- Delete All – Each article is simply a one-paragraph plot synopsis with no additional information or encyclopedic value whatsoever. --Satori Son 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into single article. It's not that we should delete because they are short, it's because they have no potential to become real articles. Can anyone honestly imagine A Clue for Scooby Doo being developed to the level of an article like The Contest? I loved Scooby, but the episodes were as similar as Starbucks. Stubs should be little seeds waiting to grow, which these are not. --Nscheffey 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that you pick one of the most famous Seinfeld episodes to make your point. Sure, it won't be "The Contest," but it could be "The Ticket." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. You're right, the most famous episode of the most famous TV show was a bad example. My problem with scooby is that all the episodes have the same plot, and there are hundreds of them. Other shows' episode pages just seem to provide much more information and potential for expansion. Am I off base here? --Nscheffey 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- You make a perfectly valid point, certainly. The point, however, is that, yes, right now they're kinda short and arguably crappy, but this isn't some random show that no one knows, it's Scooby Doo, arguably one of the most popular cartoons of its time, if not all time. I'm inclusionist when it comes to television shows, yes, but this isn't, I dunno, Love Monkey. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. You're right, the most famous episode of the most famous TV show was a bad example. My problem with scooby is that all the episodes have the same plot, and there are hundreds of them. Other shows' episode pages just seem to provide much more information and potential for expansion. Am I off base here? --Nscheffey 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that you pick one of the most famous Seinfeld episodes to make your point. Sure, it won't be "The Contest," but it could be "The Ticket." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. While the existing articles are still stubs, merely being a stub is hardly a good reason to delete articles - the subject is encyclopaedic enough. WilyD 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge. BJK 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Speedy Delete All {{db-nocontext}} Ste4k 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Important to note that the articles actually provide context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Important to note that all Scooby Doo,Where Are You! episodes are very similar to each other to the point of generating a kind of brainwashing effect Bwithh 03:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Important to note that the articles actually provide context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Scooby Doo, Where Are You! for now, if anyone decides to expand them further they can be separated again. Kirjtc2 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, second choice Delete. The show is notable. However, as many have mentioned above, any descriptions of the episodes not only are, but would have to be, very similar to each other. There is no point in having separate articles that say essentially the same thing. AnonEMouse 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge all; the only thing that splitting information up like this does is make it harder for people to read.
Some people may think that popular topics somehow "deserve" to have a lot of distinct articles. They don't: what they deserve is high quality articles, of whatever number is needed to provide that quality. Where an article is so long that it becomes awkward to read it, it is an improvement to break it up; when articles are so short that it becomes awkward to navigate them, it is an improvement to merge them. It's not like merging these would even result in any information being lost, let alone any knowledge. So what's the problem? — Haeleth Talk 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC) - Merge all , for the love of God, as per jelly bean in jar argument. Universitytruth 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete All or Merge All as above. Bwithh 03:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge all per Haeleth. Doocruft. You could redirect to one article that just says "Plot summary - Mystery Machine/spooky location/scare#1/clue#1/jinkies/scare#2/clue#2/zoinks/"me and Daph will go this way"/running down corridor/comedy double act/only other character in cartoon is revealed as ghost/pesky kids/soda bar/Scoooby Doooby Dooo" --DaveG12345 07:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I was bold enough to (re)create List of Scooby-Doo, Where are You! episodes with plot summaries. Damned if that wasn't the longest game of Mad Libs I've ever played. --FuriousFreddy 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Expand These are notable and more information should be added to bring them up to par with the Family Guy or Simpsons episodes. --Pboyd04 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Merge all, per Haeleth. OSU80 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.