Talk:The X-Files/Archive 3

message: Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for this series appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly.  These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the show's "List of episodes" or season pages.  Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected, merged or deleted. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage.   Thanks.  TTN 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simpsons episodes are all on Wikipedia, each with a separate article. The only difference there is that a Wikiproject exists to catalog all Simpsons episodes. Are we to assume that if a Wikiproject existed to catalog X-Files episodes, then the articles would then be notable?Equazcion 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between the two series is that the Simpsons editor have asserted notability, given real world information, and have proved the episodes' potential in general. That needs to be done for these to exist. TTN 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Potential? The episodes' potential to do what exactly? What kind of real-world information do Simpsons episode articles exhibit that these don't? Have you checked each one, or did you just make an assumption and add tags to all of them?Equazcion 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That has potential, but it still lacks any sources and if the Emmys are the only thing about it, they can be placed elsewhere. It's best to tag it. TTN 22:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homer's Enemy and Cape Feare are the best examples of Simpsons episodes. TTN 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't ask for examples of good Simpsons episode articles. ALL the episodes have articles. You're giving me examples of the ones that most deserve to stay? I can give you good examples of X-Files episodes - does that mean they ALL deserve to stay as well? Equazcion 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said that you wanted to see what was so special about them, so I showed you. The Simpsons get a break due to their three FAs and thirty something GAs. They have shown that a great amount deserve articles. In the end, many probably won't need them, but there is no need to get on their case. There is not one episode of this series that even comes close to really proving itself. Even then, around forty quality articles substantiates four hundred while two or three hardly makes over one hundred worth it. Instead of attacking another show, work on this one. TTN 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not attacking another show. I'm pointing out exactly what you've just proven: that rather than reviewing each article, you review a couple and tag all of them to reflect a generalization. "In the end, many probably won't need them, but there is no need to get on their case" -- wrong. Tag the articles that deserve to be tagged. "two or three hardly makes over one hundred worth it" - that's not how it works. You're supposed to review an article and tag it accordingly, not review a couple of articles and tag ALL related ones accordingly. Equazcion 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are. You are trying to justify that these deserve articles as much as they do, even if that means that both are wiped out. They have proven a general notability, which is all that needs to be done. You don't actually have to fix the episodes if you show that they have the potential. In this case, I looked at every one of them, and only a few had any references, which are total crap. That negates any worth. TTN 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to fix an article if you've shown that they have potential? That they have the potential for notability? You can't be serious. Where are you getting this crap from? You're completely off your rocker. All the X-Files episodes have potential, they just need references and other info that does exist. So they have potential. Equazcion 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources need to be shown to back claims of notability. TTN 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do sources need to be shown to back claims of potential for notability? How exactly does one prove the potential for notability, as you've listed as criteria for keeping an article? Please do edify me. Equazcion 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I just stated is all you need to do. Find a good number of wide sources that show potential for all episodes. Otherwise, work on the one or two that may be able to actually exist. TTN 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This potential crap is just that, crap. You made it up. Unless you can show me a wikipedia guideline for it. Equazcion 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since no one knows if the episodes are going to be deleted you'll have to wait and see before you can make links. However I think if the episodes do get deleted there's a good chance they'll get redirected to the episode list, so if you ask me you can probably link to the individual episodes now. Equazcion 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode notability