Deletion of Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager)

Comment: I'm putting this here to get to every one at once. First, real world context does not mean the source of the information comes from outside the show, it means the information is about the real world. In fact, a primary source can provide real world context, DVD commentary about the production for instance. There are secondary sources but they aren't being used to say anything. The Paul Ruditis book is being used to source the plot and an aspect of the fiction, the name of a fictional character. With the Star Trek: The Human Frontier, the article only says the episode is discussed with no analysis included. From the plot we get "Neelix's religious faith is challenged and ends up changing" and from the book we get "This episode deals with religious faith and how it can change." That says the exact same thing twice, that isn't an analysis. That book could contain analysis, but this article does not. With that in mind, not one valid "keep" argument has been raised. We have, in fact, already reached a consensus to delete the article. There are deletion arguments based on , , , and , while the keep arguments come straight out of . It is completely irrelevant that "Arguments to Avoid" is an essay rather than a policy or guideline, because it isn't being used as the delete argument. It is being used to refute keep arguments that get made so often that it became necessary to catalog them. It becomes tiresome to have to explain to the same person multiple times that there are plenty of "useful" things that get deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, dictionary definitions for example. So please, stop presenting invalid and unsound arguments, and stop being offended that articles get deleted. If you want to contribute to a Star Trek fan page then contribute to one, don't turn Wikipedia into one
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:FICT||WP:WAF||WP:EPISODE||WP:ATA)

Comment: to Voyager LOE. This ''clearly'' fails the criteria spelled out at  and makes no attempt to assert out-of-universe notability or importance. Fan-driven enthusiasm for individual episode articles is not grounds for overturning policy consensus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: to a new list of season 4 article. I know this is an AFD, but a merge should address all of the concerns about the article.Most articles for episodes can easily be merged to a list while keeping the list at a reasonable length ''and'' keeping the same content. A new list template might need to be designed to contain the same information as the current infobox. I figure that having the information in a list will make it easier to cite, and to keep the article ''out of universe'', and at the same time, a list is ''not'' a #PLOT|plot summary; a season is also  more notable, and can have additional information, such as the reception of the season
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: No sources indicating real world context, fails . Note: There is no consensus to make articles for every episode of a notable series.  says the opposite in fact. All of the keeps are contradicting policy and guidelines as if it were the policy and guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:EPISODE)

Comment: per  and .  No ''independent'' sources giving significant coverage to this episode.   Fan sites do not count.  There are a lot of these articles about episodes which fail these guidelines.   I wouldn't mind a transwiki to a star trek wiki somewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE||WP:N)

Comment: This completely fails .  Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha.  There isn't any demonstration that this episode is notable in the real world, and just being an episode of Star Trek doesn't make it notable ().  As for the |all or nothing argument in relation to other Star Trek: Voyager episodes, if an episode of that show has real-world, attributable context, then it should stay.  Otherwise it should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:ALLORNOTHING)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: into the LOE. Nothing in the notes is cited, thus it needs to be or get removed. Everything should be cited. Even then, nothing says it couldn't be listed on the LOE page as well. There is not enough real world content to justify the expanded plot, which takes up more of the article than anything else (which should not happen). Plots are for context, not meant to act as a "standalone". Nothing screams "i'm notable" either. Got a Neilsen rating, ok...what does the show average? AfD was probably the wrong way to go anyway. A "Proposed merger" tag should have been placed so that all the concerns could be discussed on the relevant talk page with an explaination of why it should be merged. ''Star Trek'' being notable doesn't make the episodes themselves notable. This wasn't split from an overly long article, so the idea of "inherited notability" isn't even close. Yes, we know Wiki isn't a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we put |everything in the world on here. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Try a merge proposal with all the requisite reason as to why the information does not warrant its own page at the moment
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING)