Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cyberchase episodes

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 21:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyberchase episodes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I do not see how this list could meet the notability guidelines. None of the episodes listed there have their own articles, and the article is based primarily on unreliable or primary sources. Also, searching for sources found nothing useful. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is this different than any other TV episodes list? There must be thousands of pages like this one. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't. There is a growing trend with AfDs lately where the noms fail to realize that a sub-page of a notable article is inherently notable. If they even looked at the MoS, specially, MOS:TV, they'd see that a list of episodes belongs in the main article, but when it becomes too big it is split into a separate article. There is no need in either having the list itself be notable (which is a pretty bizarre ask, as that is almost never discussed by RS) or even having all episodes have article, or even one. If the series itself isn't notable, then nominate it, but as long as it is, then Keep this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVSPLIT; this is a common type of page, and the nominator has not explained why this article should be an exception. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and WP:TROUT nominator for starting an AfD for one page (with little traffic) among countless others just like it, but not really per the arguments above – MOS:TVSPLIT almost seems to contradict that with "all articles must stand on their own", and is oddly silent on the notability of full-series episode lists. The correct argument here is that, contrary to popular misconception, notability is sometimes WP:INHERITED (that link itself provides several examples of such) and this is one of those cases: a TV series is the sum of its episodes and vice versa; therefore, it is logically impossible for one to be notable but not the other. Modernponderer (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all articles have to meet the notability guidelines. Especially not list articles. Its a spinoff article, content that wouldn't all fit easily in the main article is spun off to another article. Dream Focus 17:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists of episodes of notable TV series are generally seen as a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the main article once they reach a sufficient length. Rorshacma (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2020 (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.