Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Introduction to Finality

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Introduction to Finality

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Television episode with no notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Final episode of season four of a TV series that has 73 out of its 84 episodes with their own articles. - RandomEcho (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if most of those 73 were turned into redirects to List of Community episodes? Most of them are just bare frameworks to present the plot to the reader, so what importance does that have for the encyclopedia? None. A bunch of the episode articles violate WP:TVPLOT by having too much text in the plot section, for instance there is "The Politics of Human Sexuality" which is almost entirely plot, more than 900 words even though TVPLOT allows a maximum of 500. "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas" violates TVPLOT with a plot section word count of almost 700, but at least that article has context and healthy sections about production and reception—it would be one of the few that are not redirected to the list of episodes. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like you should fix those other articles. Anyways, as has been stated, this is the final episode of the series; it's obviously notable, particularly when most other episodes have their own page. Naapple (Talk) 03:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to concerns about the synopsis length, I have edited it down to 498 words which is in accordance to WP:TVPLOT. That said, issues with other articles are exactly that. Issues with other articles and not issues with this article. Mpen320. Also, as the season finale (I just read the series has been renewed) it is notable, but even by itself it is notable. Every episode of Glee has its own entry.

Keep Don't like the other articles? Stop being a lazy complainer and fix them! Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:24, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Keep The article is young, and might get better. The article's subject is an episode that is significant for being the last in the first season of post-Harmon production, and likely in the show's run. If things change in a year, perhaps I will change my position, but deletion so soon is premature. Mang (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Episodes of Community are regularly discussed in reliable sources (critically), so even before airing it would have been reasonable to create. Now aired, there's at least 3 reviews in it, likely more given time. ( --MASEM (t) 14:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is at least the season finale and possibly will be the series finale. Out of all the episodes that have articles, why is this the one you want to delete?? --TheTruthiness (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While yes the article could use improvement in how it is written, we Wikipedians should just improve the article. It is premature to dismiss this article as insignificant as it is a season finale and up until recently, could have been the series finale. Also, it already has three reviews in it and sections on continuity and cultural references less than 48 hours after the episode aired. -Mpen320 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely needs improving, but quality of current content shouldn't be an issue in deciding deletion.IrishStephen (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW and the fact that there are enough critical sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 14 May 2013 (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.