Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/What a Night For a Knight

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WilyD (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 27 June 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:43, 27 June 2006 by WilyD (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

What a Night For a Knight

Nominating this and several other articles:

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)
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)
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. joturn e r 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. :) Mango juice 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)

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)
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)