Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review/Archive K

< Wikipedia:Television episodes | Review

King of the Hill Batch 1

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I think they were all added at around the same time (I did it one day). This one for example was added on June 13 at 3:41, which is actually before The Man Who Shot Kane Skretteberg which is listed. No one's edited since the tag was added either. Phydend 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I don't know why it didn't get added. We already have these, but as soon as these are done, go ahead and bring all the rest. No need to confuse others by adding a bunch more episodes to a list they already went through.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all per the reasons stated already above. Seraphim Whipp 15:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all as above. Alcemáe T • C 18:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, seem to consist only of trivia and plot summaries in keeping with a TVGuide release. Allow for future expansion, of course. With many thanks to Bignole for going through the effort to point this out on the talk page. --Milton 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and improve. I frankly do not understand why any of these articles should be deleted rather than improved. If you take a look at List of The Simpsons episodes, there is an article for nearly all 400 episodes. But if you look at List of King of the Hill episodes, less than half of the episodes actually have articles. We should be encouraging a higher level of completion for King of the Hill episodes as well, rather than being counterproductive in deleting them. Most King of the Hill episodes have a plentiful amount of information to build an article off of, though it does appear more people need to take the initiative to do so. Coincidently, one of the episodes mentioned for deletion here (Revenge of the Lutefisk), I had actually heard people randomly in public discussing this very episode not long ago, so I'm obliged to think that it must be somewhat notable to be a topic of discussion in a public place. If any admins decide to take further action on these listed episodes, please contact me first. I'm extremely strapped for time, but I would rather make an attempt at bringing these episode articles up to par, instead of seeing them deleted. Being a Texan myself, I would like to personally say that many of the King of the Hill episodes contain, document, and in many cases even accurately portray Texas life in the 21st century. I feel that they make an excellent addition to Wikipedia, and in fact deserve much more attention than they currently receive.   — C M B J   [Msg] 08:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these articles are being deleted. They will be redirected to the article list, which can be undone. These articles should be improved, and they were notified of their lack of compliance with the guideline at least fourteen days ago. And comparing these articles to the Simpsons articles is actually counterproductive to your arguement. Many of the Simpsons articles warrant their own article, as they meet notability guidelines. We should be encouraging enhancement of articles, you are correct, which is why there was a notice placed on all of these articles giving them fourteen days to meet guidelines, which they did not. Your comment about contacting you before action is taken is off. There was a notice placed over two weeks ago asking they be brought up to par. Your comment makes me to wonder if you have read the guidelines on articles or the review process or looked at {{episode notability}}. I would suggest that, if you haven't you do. Alcemáe T • C 09:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that mostly all of the Simpsons articles warrant their own articles. What I was suggesting is that we do the same for these articles. They may have been tagged for a long time, but I just found the articles last night. That's why I asked for someone to contact me prior to their deletion. I don't really have the time to, however, I can probably bring at least one of those articles up to a fairly good status. I may just have to pick one of them. Please don't get me wrong here, I only had the best intentions. I know these articles currently in poor conditions.   — C M B J   [Msg]
"Square Peg" has had since April 16, 2006 to get improved. The rule in verifiability is the person that creates the information is stuck with the burden of proving it. None of these pages have proven notability in any way. Hearing people in the street isn't verifiable for notability either. Please check out Season 8 of The Simpsons, as every one of their episodes is GA status. Remeber, we are not striking them out of existence, we are moving them to a larger topic. Trivia doesn't have a place here, and the rest of that is plot. Try adapting the LOE page to include relevant information. If you need help with that, I will be glad to help you out. But rushing to create pages, in the hope that they will be made notable later, is not what Wikipedia is about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create these articles, and I actually just stumbled upon them last night. But the reason I did request that I be contacted prior to their deletion is because they already had the framework to bring up to par. I entirely understand that WP is not a trivia barn. I did not mean to cause a problem for anyone here.   — C M B J   [Msg]
I cannot stress this enough. These articles are not being deleted. They will only be merged and redirected. Anyone can recreate the article as long as it complies with requirements. If you wish to, after the likely event that these are redirected, bring them up to par, you may. However, please do not remove the redirection and instate a new article unless it complies with guidelines. Alcemáe T • C 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you for your clarification.   — C M B J   [Msg] 23:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMBJ, you aren't causing problems for anyone. Everyone's opinion is valued. The idea behind keeping them is that they must establish notability. If you are unclear about what actually constitutes notability, there are several guidelines: WP:NOTABLE, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), plus WP:EPISODE, WP:WAF. People will always say "this are just guidelines, and not policy", and this is true. But, verifiability is policy, and there it says that anything subject to challenge must be proven via reliable sources. The challenge is over the notability, and that must be established, and the burden to establish it is on the person that created the page. That isn't to say that no one else can establish it, but that you shouldn't add information, or create articles, to which you cannot provide reliable sources for (in the hopes that others will do it for you). If you have a vested interest in the show, or particular episodes, and are familiar with it, then try working one up in a personal sandbox until you believe you have sufficient evidence to support an article's notability. If you are not sure, you can easily ask any person's name you see on this page, and we'd be glad (I'm speaking for myself, but I would assume that everyone else would too) to give some advice on your work. Unfortunately, we cannot personally work on every single episode that has its own article. For one, most will never have evidence to support notability, simply because the real world just doesn't care about television shows all that much. There are many exceptions, but most just don't have anything written about them beyond some fansites. Even the ones that do would take quite awhile to work on. I've gotten two into good shape (one is featured) and they both took me months to get them that way. We aren't deleting them, we are merely performing what was established long ago, and that was not every episode warrants its own article, and should be part of a larger topic until there comes a time when it needs to be split off on its own.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That does not mean an article is notable. And we're not deleting anything. If you think the article is notable, then by all means, fix it. If not, it should not be an article. Alcemáe T • C 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Episodes of KotH are inherently notable. SchmuckyTheCat
Ummm no? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, that's funny. Says who? You Schmucky? I think the day we can cite a Wikipedian editor as a reliable source is the day a monkey stands on his head and sings the Star Spangled Banner. Please read the notability guideline (the general one). You'll note what "few" exceptions are for things that have instant notability. Make note that "Television episodes" are not part of that list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure i can find a monkey who and stand on his head and sing the Star Spangled Banner somewhere... This is the country where you can get a pizza faster than an ambulance after all... --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe sign language singing, but not vocal cord singing (at least not intelligibly). Point being, someone saying "this is notable because it's notable" isn't verifiable. Nor is "this is notable because it's an episode of a notable show". That line of thinking means that every bit character deserves its own page, and we should have an article on the Meglomart, and every other minor thing that exists in a fictional world. This isn't TV.com or IMDb or some fansite where you can publish whatever you want. This is an encyclopedia, the key word being encyclopedia and if someone wants to put something on here (and not have it removed) they need to provide a reliable source. The same goes for creating an article. You cannot just create an article at a whims notice and expect it to last forever if you cannot establish notability via reliable sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Redirect all I  (said) (did) 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

King of the Hill (batch 2)

edit

See here

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Television_episodes/Review/Archive_K&oldid=1138690286"