Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Hundred (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)

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 no consensus. Fundamental disagreement, and neither side is likely to persuade the other. Delete camp points to the spare sourcing. Keep camp reflects that there is sourcing, and point to its milestone status. As always, further discussions on merging or redirecting my continue on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Hundred (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)

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

Discuss - per a series of recent AFDs resulting in either a merge or delete outcome for other ATHF episode articles I redirected several seemingly non-notable ATHF articles to the list article. I'm not quite sure what technologically happened but following a series of actions by another editor and me we wound up with the article back at its present title. The other editor asserts that the IGN review satisfies notability requirements. However, a series of recent AFDs for episodes of The Boondocks seen here and here seem to establish some measure of consensus that a single such review (in those instances, reviews by the AV Club) is insufficient to establish notability. Since it is unlikely that agreement will be achieved through any other process (I don't intend to change my mind and I doubt the other editor does either) I bring it here. I searched for reliable sources that were about the episode and found nothing. I believe deletion is appropriate and that the unlikelihood of this exact search string makes redirection unnecessary but I also recognize that consensus for redirection is much more likely than for deletion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not suggest its subject is notable in any way. Shii (tock) 13:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to actually read it and then check the links in the reference section. Dream Focus 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioning something that happened in another AFD, doesn't make any sense here. The exact same thing ends differently, based on whoever is around at the time to notice and participate in the AFD. And the recent AFD about episodes for this series, nominated only those without references, not this one. The references in the article now prove its notable. Dream Focus 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing previous similar AFDs is certainly reasonable as it aids editors in understanding how similar articles were treated in the recent past. The article does not have "references". It has a single reference, cited twice, and several similar articles with a single similar reference each were recently deleted. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone care how articles were treated in the past? Its all random. You are here to discuss this article only, not just mindlessly mimic something from a different one. Dream Focus 06:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thoughtful editor cares how similar articles were treated in the very recent past because we operate on a consensus model that develops consensus through discussion. If consensus has emerged or is emerging that a single review on an entertainment blog does not constitute the sort of reliable sourcing that establishes notability then it is appropriate to mention that. Mentioning this possible consensus does not constitute "mindlessly mimicking" and describing it as such is uncivil. I don't know why you feel the need to be so unpleasant. I don't think I've said or done anything to you to warrant a borderline personal attack. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a single reference is enough, sometimes it isn't, depending on the personal opinions of whoever randomly happens to appear to state their opinion. Just as you can link to AFDs where the small number of people that randomly showed up said one thing, I could link to others where an equally small number of random people showed up and said the exact opposite. The opinions of others should not affect your judgment. Think for yourself. Is this episode notable or not? Dream Focus 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think for myself, thank you, but I also take into consideration that the opinions of others also have value. Apparently you do not as you dismiss their participation to our collective as simply showing up at random. WP:GNG states that subjects should have coverage in reliable sources, plural. I believe I've made it quite clear that I do not believe this episode to be independently notable, as the only source that covers it in significant detail is a review on a blog. Should other sources be developed then the article can always be undeleted and the new sources incorporated. We write articles based on reliable sources. We don't write articles in the hope that one day someone will develop sources for them. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first impression. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important milestone episode for a notable series. The episode was listed on TV guide's Hot List. It has a decent third party source already and probably has plenty more out there though it's hard to tell without looking more carefully because the uncreative name creates tons of false positives on Google. —CodeHydro 00:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a paragraph that could appear in any daily television listing constitutes a reliable source for purposes of notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just any TV listing... it's TV Guide, the premier TV listing for the North American continent. Think how this show was selected to be one of the six "hot listed" out of the several hundreds (or thousands) of shows displayed on that day throughout the whole continent. —CodeHydro 15:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still remains a paragraph that could appear in any TV listing in any newspaper and serves as a "this exists" notice rather than significant coverage. We have no information as to the editorial process that goes into selecting the shows that TV Guide considers "hot" on a particular day. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable because is the longest running cartoon of Adult Swim. But it is almost unsourced, though. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What in the notability guidelines indicates that being the longest-running series on a network makes a series notable and what then makes an individual episode of that series notable as a result? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are suggestions, not law as policy is. No one ever voted for those things, nor did the Wikipedia Foundation, which are the only authorities for Wikipedia, make any rulings about them. They currently say something totally different than what they use to, as people have argued and bullied and schemed to change them to what they wanted them to be, and then used them as justifications to eliminate articles they don't like. Dream Focus 08:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are so dismissive of the time and hard work that have gone into crafting our guidelines and that you are so unwilling to assume the good faith of your fellow editors, accusing them of bullying and scheming and reducing their opinions to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm assuming that you would not be happy if your opinions were dismissed as the equally simplistic WP:ILIKEIT so you should probably avoid treating others the same way. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic example of a topic that does not itself qualify for notability riding on the coattails of a subject that does. Taken independently of its parent subject, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE; there's simply not enough significant coverage in secondary sources. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 00:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is a milestone episode of Adult Swim's longest running series. This is also the first time an Adult Swim original series made it to 100 episodes. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is getting a little ridiculous. The arguments for retaining this article seem to consist of But it's the one hundredth episode of Aqua Teen. Frankly, I think the show's funny, but that doesn't mean that multiple independent sources have given it significant secondary coverage per WP:GNG. Even in the article itself, a cited reference shows that the episode wasn't even the most-watched episode of the night on Adult Swim. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE - notability is not inherented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2010 (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.