Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Bran Hypothesis (The Big Bang Theory)
- 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 merge to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Big Bran Hypothesis (The Big Bang Theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
TV episode article that fails to establish notability. The only reference is tv.com, and this only establishes the original air date. The article is essentially just a plot summary and therefore fails WP:PLOT. The article was redirected to the appropriate entry in the episode list article but the article creator restored the article, which is why it has ended up here. AussieLegend (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following recently created, related articles, for the same reason:
- The Fuzzy Boots Corollary (The Big Bang Theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Luminous Fish Effect (The Big Bang Theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Luminous Fish Effect (The Big Bang Theory) does not include references or even a plot. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the article needs expansion, I do believe the episodes deserve an article. The series is nominated for the Emmies I believe. We just need people to add info. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The series is notable, the individual episodes are not. Any coverage of the emmys is in the main article, The Big Bang Theory. Notability is not inherited. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. What I do not understand is why all episodes of the simpsons, american dad, law and order, etc. are notable enough to have their own article though. There are some double standards involved here. Dont get me wrong, I really dont care that much if these articles are created, but I dont understand the rationale for deleting these and keeping all episodes from other series. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In all likelihood they're not notable enough. It's probably just the case that nobody has nominated them for deletion, or that too many fans and not enough people following policy and guidelines have voted at the AfD. Unfortunately that happens all of the time and it's one of the reasons that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists came to be. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that does not support your argument per se. The second paragraph clearly states "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." Anyway: what I am saying is: if you delete these, your rationale should be that no episode of a TV series is ever notable enough to have an article. Clearly others disagree with you, since there are 1000s of articles on episodes (I even think some have been featured on the main page). If these articles are notable, the ones you are nominating are also, because it is a well-known tv series with high viewing rates and is even nominated for an emmy. What more is needed to make them notable? Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is, and should be, treated on a case by case basis. There's no reason why there can't be notable and non-notable episodes. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The pilot episodes of most programs are usually notable because they meet the general notability guidlines while others aren't because they don't meet the guidelines. The mere existence of an episode article doesn't mean that the article's creator disagrees with me. Often the articles are written with absolutely no regard to the episode's notability or lack thereof. The Luminous Fish Effect (The Big Bang Theory) is a case in point. Glee episode articles are usually started well before the article is aired, often as soon as its inclusion on an airing schedule is announced. TV episodes are like any other subject; some are notable and some are not, and articles about non-notable subjects are created all the time. Some go to AfD and some don't. These are three articles that have. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are absolutely right, but I hate the randomness of it all. Either we (the editors of wikipedia) decide episodes of well known shows are notable and add them, or we decide they are not and delete/merge all of them. Just because there are enough fans of a certain show active on wikipedia, all episodes get an article, while other shows are not eligible for seperate articles because nobody will defend them against AfD. I'm sorry, but that is not a good policy. I would think an episode watched by millions of people world-wide is more notable than lets say a US town with 4 inhabitants. Anyway, I'm not arguing about it anymore. These are not my articles and not the kind of articles I work on, but it just struck me as odd when I saw them nominated. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is, and should be, treated on a case by case basis. There's no reason why there can't be notable and non-notable episodes. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The pilot episodes of most programs are usually notable because they meet the general notability guidlines while others aren't because they don't meet the guidelines. The mere existence of an episode article doesn't mean that the article's creator disagrees with me. Often the articles are written with absolutely no regard to the episode's notability or lack thereof. The Luminous Fish Effect (The Big Bang Theory) is a case in point. Glee episode articles are usually started well before the article is aired, often as soon as its inclusion on an airing schedule is announced. TV episodes are like any other subject; some are notable and some are not, and articles about non-notable subjects are created all the time. Some go to AfD and some don't. These are three articles that have. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that does not support your argument per se. The second paragraph clearly states "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." Anyway: what I am saying is: if you delete these, your rationale should be that no episode of a TV series is ever notable enough to have an article. Clearly others disagree with you, since there are 1000s of articles on episodes (I even think some have been featured on the main page). If these articles are notable, the ones you are nominating are also, because it is a well-known tv series with high viewing rates and is even nominated for an emmy. What more is needed to make them notable? Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In all likelihood they're not notable enough. It's probably just the case that nobody has nominated them for deletion, or that too many fans and not enough people following policy and guidelines have voted at the AfD. Unfortunately that happens all of the time and it's one of the reasons that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists came to be. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. What I do not understand is why all episodes of the simpsons, american dad, law and order, etc. are notable enough to have their own article though. There are some double standards involved here. Dont get me wrong, I really dont care that much if these articles are created, but I dont understand the rationale for deleting these and keeping all episodes from other series. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The series is notable, the individual episodes are not. Any coverage of the emmys is in the main article, The Big Bang Theory. Notability is not inherited. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the article needs expansion, I do believe the episodes deserve an article. The series is nominated for the Emmies I believe. We just need people to add info. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that disambiguation is not required in the article title and previous, now redirected, versions of these articles exist at The Big Bran Hypothesis, The Fuzzy Boots Corollary, and The Luminous Fish Effect. The versions of these articles before they were redirected, primarily for failing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) (as these new versions do), are here, here and here respectively. -AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article because it is just a retelling of the story with no secondary references. I would like to see WP establish a policy that individual episodes of any TV series are not notable (except for very rare cases) but I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. BigJim707 (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge all to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1), as I did when this article was first created. That page can have its plot sections increased with more detail in the future. This episode is not independently notable of the entire series. Per Aussie Legend, the disambig is unnecessary. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1) as non-notable episodes of a notable series. While I too believe there are too many articles for individual episodes of other series, that is not the debate here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect - Episode wasn't nominated for an Emmy nor does it have any other notable characteristics. --NINTENDUDE64 01:48, 20 September 2011 (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.