Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Days, Part 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 was redirect to Grey's Anatomy (season 3). Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six Days, Part 2

[edit]
Six Days, Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let the Angels Commit:"Tagged as failing WP:GNG. Does not seem notable outside of being an episode of Grey's Anatomy."Curb Chain (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of wp:notability of/for a separate episode like this. Zero references. Looks like part of mass-production of articles on individual episodes with some material duplicated across articles. North8000 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and condiense the plot section--this is one of the few in this group where it is excessive. . The source for the plot is as it should be the episode itself. The source for the production data is presumably the DVD jacket, but does need to be stated. This particular article mentions reviews--they need The criterion is unsourceable, not currently unsourced. It's odd to see an objection that it uses a common format--we would expect it to, just like all articles on settlements, or sports events,--they all have defined formats. Just like them, all television series articles in fact are going to need to discuss the same sorts of things. If the format were different for each, the material would be much less readable. But otherwise the articles are not cookie-curtter--I don't think the plot section can be written without being aware of what happened in the episode, nor the other content in the boxes.
        Nominating this many articles at once makes it almost impossible to find proper sources in the necessary time: it takes a minute to do a cookie-cutter nomination, hours of research to source an article fully. I consider these nomination therefore to disruptively frustrate the twin goals of deletion policy, which is to rescue what can be rescued and delete only the unrescuable--of which we have enough. I urge people to check my comments to see that I have individually considered each individual article--I use some common phrases, because some aspects are similar-- but not all. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Six_Days,_Part_2&oldid=1078963912"