Deletion of Kept Man

Comment: First of all, if we say this isn't setting a precendent, every other episode AfD will doubtlessly become an end- and pointless debate of wether that particular series is notable enough. Second, see #Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Since obviously there are enough viewers and contributors to create and read these episode articles, they should just stay. Really, who does it hurt
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: and merge/redirect any relevant info to episode list. Per  and , articles shouldn't be nothing more than a plot summary.  And while the episode itself may be used as a source, we shouldn't have articles using just primary sources or just one source.  If secondary sources can't be found to add info beyond plot summaries, these would be better covered in an episode list with a ''brief'' plot summary and any other relevant info
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE||WP:NOT)

Comment: per User:Action Jackson IV, and per the precedent of the Lucy episodes. Individual episodes which have been written about by reliable independent sources so that legitimate articles are possible satisfying  and  can then be broken out into in separate articles. Lengthy trivia-filled articles about each episode of  TV show are non-encyclopedic and often original research. I would like to see a little more plot summary than Action Jackson. There could be a paragraph in the "List" article which gives the events (with spoiler warning) in the episode in more detail than the teasers in TV Guide or the show's website, which is useful to viewers who start a series in midyear and want the "back story" or who miss an episode and want to catch up. Those who want to delve into every frame of a TV show can do so in the discussion at http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/ Televisionwithoutpity. I do not see TV.com, the reference cited in the episode articles as meeting  and . It is a policy decision for Wikipedia to make as to whether an editor's viewing of the original TV episode satisfys 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:A||WP:A||WP:N||WP:A)

Comment: Wikipedia is not .  seems to be in play here. I would agree that the plot summaries are overlong, and the articles do seem to be short of secondary sources. But given time - this may improve, after all wikipedia wasn't built in a day. Per above the show seems notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PAPER||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per . While I did not check every single article, the several that I did check were, indeed, nothing but plot summaries and "trivia" sections. If any of the episodes, say, won notable awards or were otherwise notable independent of the series itself, then a properly referenced article can be written.  I would not take this, however, as a referendum on all such series of articles because the state of the articles and the notability of the individual episodes will vary the proper course of action
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: per nom, above, and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: Crikey!  Wikipedia is  a place for plot summaries, which is what this little beauty of an article is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: to allow discussion on the talk page. Mel Etitis was |bold to redirect all of the articles. Reverting his actions was appropriate as it lacked consensus. Rather than taking this issue to AfD, the matter ought to be discussed on the article's talk page. Even if the articles are deleted in this AfD, they still need to be recreated as redirects! This is an issue that ought to be discussed on the main article's talk page, rather than being brought to AfD. Also, the nom's claim that the articles are unsourced is partly inaccurate (the source for the article information is in all cases the episode itself and a episode guide website) and mostly irrelevant (the majority of information in the article is easily sourceable via {{tl|cite episode
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: the argument behind pretty much all of these Keep votes is , which is no real argument at all.  Notability not demonstrated, these articles are not the subject of multiple non-trivial works, etc etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: This is a ridiculous precedent to set.  To say episodes of a mainstream television show are non-notable is not right, and as it's been pointed out, most of the episodes have verifiable sources.  Of course they should be worked on, but deleting them is not the solution.  If this AfD is an |argument against the practicality of individual episode articles in general, I suggest you take a look at Pilot (House) for a featured episode article.  We should be striving for featured content, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)