Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Who Love Peepholes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People Who Love Peepholes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a plot only description of a television episode that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. Other than an extended plot description, the article provides nothing more than is already contained in the episode list article. Only two references, one of which is for the same ratings figure used in the list article, while the other is incorrectly used to justify a ratings figure in the "production" section. AussieLegend (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every episode of this show probably passes the GNG. Regardless, the first few eps after Sheen was replaced by Kutcher have received massive coverage. Not that I really care, but keep is what our policies and guidelines recommend. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Probably" isn't good enough. Notability needs to be demonstrated and the article certainly doesn't do that. A search doesn't find anything that would demonstrated notability either. WP:GNG is a guideline and WP:PLOT is policy - Neither of those recommend keeping this article. Both indicate it should be deleted. However, redirection to Two and a Half Men (season 9)#ep179 is the better option. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a few sources.[1][2][3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why it can't be redirected here? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two and a Half Men (season 9)#ep179 is the actual entry for the episode. There's no reason it can't be redirected at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Episode is significant because it is part 2 of a 2 parter which sees a new cast member join the show. Instead of erasing a significant article consider improving it(Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- The new cast member joined in the first part. There's no issue with the significance of that episode and its article demonstrates the notability and significance of that episode. The significance is not really the issue here though, it's whether or not it is notable and it doesn't seem to be the case. As time progresses, notability isn't likely to improve and it seems that nobody is interested in improving this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.