Deletion of My Mirror Image

Comment: Once again,  does '''not''' endorse deleting these articles. They are '''''not''''' "unverifiable" and they are '''''not''''' "original research", which are the '''''only''''' cases where the guideline even mentions AfD. In fact, these episodes quite specifically meet many of the points in the guideline that would suggest ''keeping'' the articles. There ''are'' qualified independent reviews available (not  fan sites, but reliable sources such as IGN), and the episode commentaries ''do'' count as valid sources. Add even the few items other editors have found from quick searches, and  dictates ''keeping'' and ''expanding'' the articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE||WP:EPISODE)

Comment: It seems pretty apparent to me that the body of evidence in this case certainly points to them being kept. Being as they are from a fairly popular television show, they are are notable enough to at least be merged, if not kept. There is a plethora of sources on the episodes and with enough time they could certainly be expanded to completely satisfy  beyond a doubt
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: With respect to the nominator, the current process of discussing merges on the talk pages seems to be going quite well, although you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Television_episodes/Review&curid=11729485&diff=161228812&oldid=160997070 didn't know about the guideline before this. Although, the fact that  suggests you do the merge process instead of AfD, that doesn't mean you ''can't''. At any rate. These aren't individually notable, and shouldn't be their own articles. TV.com and IMDB are not notability qualifying sources, they even border on unreliable sources. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: There is List of Scrubs episodes which covers the matter in a quite appropriate level of detail, therefore merge is not necessary. I must note that the nominator is right citing #PLOT,  and , and most keepers are quoting POLICY, ,  and . We merge only when there's something to merge, and all I see are plots, plots, plots
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:EPISODE||WP:N||WP:NOTPOLICY||WP:PERABOVE||WP:ITSINHERITED||WP:ITSNOTABLE)

Comment: due to  telling you specifically ''not'' to. No prejudice against a merge, however
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: the deletion proposal itself violates , which is quite specific about promoting merges and discouraging deletion. Furthermore, there are numerous additional sources available for most if not all of the episodes, including independent reviews from notable secondary sources, and cast and crew commentaries. "Needing improvement" is not grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: Per .  These clearly do not meet that guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: If episodes are to be deleted because notability is not inherited (so.. what? We would only have one article per TV show?) then we would have to delete just about every article about every TV show episode on Wikipedia, leaving only those especially significant ones. Nah.. keep 'em. There's nothing in  that says individual episodes should not have their own articles anyway, so whoever mentioned that seems to have got the wrong end of the stick. If some articles are poorly (or not at all) referenced, then fine.. they need to be improved. But that doesn't mean they should be deleted. Otherwise you would be saying that all stubs must be referenced on creation, or not created at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)

Comment: this nomination reeks of someone trying to oint, and notability can be established, see My Musical, well on its way to be a FAC, and it won't be the last. Also Keep per Ckatz's quote from , actually telling you not to do this. Finally, Keep because, even if you do delete all these, it won't last, because these episode articles are essentially why thousands of people come to wikipedia, to read the episode articles for all the hundreds of tv shows that have articles. You've got a problem Drew, you're looking at this the complete wrong way, as an editor trying to follow policy(far too rigidly by the way). What you need to do is try and put yourselves in the shoes of a reader, remember there are far more people who come here purely to read articles than there are who edit. What do you think a person who misses an episode of a program and comes on here to find out what happened wants? a brief entry in a list, or a detailed plot summary with some other bits of info thrown in. And yes you can say something "they can go to another wiki", but they wouldn't. They would(and do, in July the scrubs article was the 40th most viewed article on the whole of wikipedia, http://toolserver.org/~leon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=100&month=07%2F2007&mode=view) and if they found no entry, that could put them off wikipedia, which is nothing without editors. Why do you think trivia sections are so common on episode articles, its because people, ordinary non-wikipedian people watch the show, notice something they think is amusing and decide to add it to an article. I know because thats how i became a regular editor, a plot summary wasn't long enough, so i added to it. I bet there are many, many other editors who started out this way. Lets say for a second you did delete all these articles, how long do you think it will be before someone signs up and makes a new one? If you want an example of this, look at The Todd's article. A while ago, the list of his "high-fives" had gotten too big so it was removed, it was unencylopedic anyway. But practically everyday, someone adds another one to the short paragraph making it bigger and bigger, till eventually we will have to remove in again. You need to stop thinking like an Editor, and try thinking like a reader. Sorry for the long rant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:EPISODE)

Comment: per the nomination, fails the  guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE)