Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall Monitor

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Monitor

This page should be deleted because it is a poorly-written summary of a SpongeBob SquarePants episode. An episode summary like this does not require its own page, but rather should be listed with its parent article (the article for the show), if desired. Note that this request only refers to Hall Monitor with a capital M. There is a separate article entitled Hall monitor about school hall monitors that is fine for Wikipedia. Schuminweb 23:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep VfD is not clean up, "poorly written" is rarely grounds for deletion; VfD is not the place to discuss merging. Saying it "belongs in the parent article" is not grounds for deletion. There is also precedent for TV episodes in Wikipedia, and there's a whole category full of SpongeBob episodes. CanadianCaesar 23:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I hate to say it (see User:Soltak/Views#Fancruft), individual episodes of notable series are themselves notable. Soltak | Talk 23:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Soltak stole my point. feydey 23:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I unhappily have to agree with Soltak, with the important caveat that even totally trivial crap episodes of complete and utter shite series that aired for six months on late night cable in Norway are considered worthy for inclusion. Dammit. Vox populi, Vox Dei. Dottore So 23:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all other SpongeBob episodes into lists for each seasons, in the same vein as the Futurama episodes. --Apostrophe 00:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I must say how glad I am that the Vox populi is able to overrule Dottoreso's POV on quality of series. Kappa 00:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am happy that Bob of Squarepants fame has an entry equivalent in depth to Sandro Botticelli. As you say, though, pov, all pov. ;) Dottore So 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily in the online wikipedia SpongeBob and Botticelli are not in competition with each other, so we don't need a POV on which is more valuable. The tricky part comes when they are in competition for space, such as for a limited-size downloadable version. I would gladly leave that judgement to others. Kappa 02:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I don't think that the Spongebob coverage we have is anywhere near adequate. Trollderella 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & delete We do not want/need a separate article for each episode of a TV series. — Nowhither 06:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete is, of course, an invalid vote. CanadianCaesar 07:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh huh (rolls eyes). Fine, then you leave no alternative but to say Kill it with fire and salt the earth afterward. Drowning Wikipedia in fancruft -- apparently Kappa's fondest dream -- should be nipped in the bud. --Calton | Talk 08:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia is not paper so "drowning" is an inappropriate analogy. Kappa 12:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only people who will see this are people who are looking for it. Oh, and about one in 100,000 of the people who are rash enough to press 'Random Article'... They will get a... shock horror... random article! Trollderella 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE as not even Seinfeld has its episodes on individual pages. If the most talked about show in recent history can summarize its episides on a single page, so can Bob. Paul Klenk 11:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but what about the list of Will & Grace episodes, and related articles? :) — RJH 18:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CanadianCaesar and Kappa. Penelope D 00:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. *drew 02:07, 28 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.