Deletion of Paternity (House)

Comment: The arguments for retention made in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hunting_(House)|previous AfD (that took place less than 5 months ago, and of which I wasn't previously aware) are still valid. I also can't see how deleting these articles would do anything to improve Wikipedia. When I asked Xeworlebi, he simply pointed me to various policies, but that doesn't answer the question. I agree that the articles are not great at the moment, but believe that even in their present condition, they're better than the proposed redirects. Instead of the deletionist method of pointing to WP:EPISODE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PLOT as if that provides some kind of inescapable logical conclusion, I'd point to  and . It doesn't make sense to claim that some episodes of a series are notable and others aren't based solely on what's been added to an article so far
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: expansion.  Masem's idea has merit, but the whole idea of deleting a whole bunch of articles without anyone bothering to attempt  is a non-starter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per #1: "''The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion — perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging..''".  Also, the nomination tells us that there has been some merger of content and so these articles should be retained for their edit history as attribution
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: all of them. Easily satisfies . Plenty of secondary sources satisfying  and  available for coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: apart from being in furtherance of Wikipedia's coverage of a notable dramatic TV series, ''every'' episode is the subject of critical review, by for example, the A.V. Club http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/tvshow/house,14/ here.  TV criticism of has really boomed in the past few years; even ''ten'' years ago I was regularly reading the Entertainment Weekly online reviews of individual ''Buffy'' episodes, for example.  Re:  complaints, I have a feeling that those few who don't like individual episode articles are judging the length of plot summary from the view of the series as a whole, rather than treating ''each episode'' as an individual work of fiction as is appropriate with this kind of dramatic series.  For the record, I don't even like ''House'', but the subject merits this kind of treatment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: That the articles do not ''currently'' meet the standards of  is irrelevant; the question of whether they should be deleted should be based on whether reliable, third-party sources exist to a sufficient degree that an encyclopedic treatment beyond a cursory plot description would be ''possible''.  Other editors have shown that books discussing the show's production and medical/ethical commentary on each episode exist; these could and should be used to beef up the articles.  The source material is there; all that's needed is for an editor to do the work of putting it into the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: Cursory view shows multiple RS, other s notwithstanding.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with having one article per TV episode when each episode attracts multiple RS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE)

Comment: The original mass nomination of 20 articles would have make improvement of those 20 a bit problematic, but finding it now includes an aditional 112 articles does not allow any reasonable or common sense expectation that all 132 could or would be improved in a 7 day period.  As noted by other editors, the series' various episodes have |received individual recognition and commentary.  As each has sources available, we have an individual notability apart from the notability of the series.  Wikipedia itself recognizes that it is |not perfect and that there is always |work that can be done.  But it does not also demand that 132 improvable articles must be fixed in |seven days.  Immediatism is not policy, unreferenced does not automatically equate to unreferencable, and patience can improve the project.  The nominator left a neutral notice on my talk page about an AFD to delete 20 season one articles.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMichaelQSchmidt&action=historysubmit&diff=417088660&oldid=416825654  It was only after arriving that I learned the number of articles being considered for deletion had grown nearly 700% from 20 articles to 132
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:IMPROVE||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: all. Plot descriptions with trivially light dressing violate #PLOT. Articles can be created ''after'' there's a reason to do so, not in anticipation that there may be something to write someday. Additionally,  indicates that separate articles are reserved for ''outstanding episodes''. There is no demonstration that any of these episodes stands out from a run-of-the-mill episode of ''House''.&mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:EPISODE)

Comment: Per  "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of '''notable works'''" (emphasis mine). There is nothing to suggest any of these individual episodes are especially notable on their own. Since it is likely that people would search for these episodes, it makes more sense to have redirects rather than nothing
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: the episode articles that fail to meet the |notability standard, consist principally of |plot, and are |unverified by |reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:PLOT||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: episode articles that are pure plot dumps in violation of #PLOT. There are widely accepted season articles around that serve the purpose of summarising the plot considely, and also don't have the problem of Wikipedia:Content forking. ABILITY hasn't been established for years, and it's fair to assume that it can't be. Redirects can easily be restored if the opposite is shown to be true. Alternatively, I support Masem's proposal to first see if a randomly selected batch of ep articles can be shown to be notable, and only redirect if nothing comes of it. But the cleanup process has to start ''some'' time, and today is as good as tomorrow.&ndash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Not even worth a redirect.  what is being passed for "notable second party sources" are external links to imdb, House wikis, "official guide to house" on google ebooks, and so on.  The keepers need to give a reason as to why  "occasional exception" clause is merited here.  I will also note that Warden's speedy keep is now specifically invalidated by the ''...'''and''' no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted'' part of SK #1, as I have now weighed in with a delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODES)