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. There is some merit to either side of the debate. The point about the article passing WP:GNG is certainly relevant. The point about the article violating WP:NOTPLOT has some merit, since the plot section does dominate the article. However, it is not a given that something that can be resolved by regular editing mechanisms mandates deletion of the entire article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dying of the Light (Heroes)[edit]

Dying of the Light (Heroes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect declined due to IGN and AV Club reviews, but those are not enough if there's nothing else to say about the article. I was unable to find anything else. This episode therefore fails to prove its own notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two reliable sources give it significant coverage, so it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 06:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, to Heroes (season 3)#ep06. Article violates WP:NOTPLOT and there is not enough coverage of the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works to correct this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – here's a review by Digital Spy, and there might be one or two other solid reviews floating out there. Also, I fail to see why two reviews in reliable outlets are not considered sufficient. The vast majority of television episodes don't even reach two reviews, so this episode should be deemed notable. Yes, the article is never going to reach GA/FA in this state, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source has the same issue the current sources have; it doesn't contain coverage of the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works that would allow us to correct the WP:NOTPLOT violation. BilledMammal (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviews clearly fall into the reception category you mentioned above, as long as they provide their own analysis and commentary about the episode (which the provided sources do, except for maybe the Eugene Weekly link) and aren't just simple recaps (which they aren't). By providing their own analysis, the article no longer contains just a summary of the plot, which is what NOTPLOT discourages. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Due to WP:NOTPLOT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG, the presence of critical reception means this does not violate WP:NOTPLOT NemesisAT (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect 2 sources should not be enough to show notability for a TV episode, should have something regarding production, and development of those sources instead of just a short phrase from each Indagate (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the issue is that the sources are underdeveloped or provide too little detail, that's a writing issue, not a notability issue (see WP:ARTN). The reviews have more details that could be added to the article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    True but limited use of the sources means they aren't discussed so doesn't follow WP:NOTPLOT Indagate (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, it's a WP:REDUNDANTFORK when it lacks information for episode-speicifc production and reception Indagate (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe a WP:NOTPLOT compliant article can be written from the current sources, although you are welcome to try. BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I would write the article if I was familiar with the show, but I tend to only write about a topic if I'm familiar with it (it's hard to explain something for someone else if you don't understand it yourself). But as has been laid out before, the two existing reviews (and the Digital Spy source linked above) contain analysis and commentary that goes beyond what is explicitly laid out in the plot. Our plot guidelines emphasize that all plot points must be clearly shown in the episode to be included in the plot summary (see MOS:TVPLOT: Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative should not be in the plot summary...), so if the analysis goes beyond those directly shown details – which these sources do – the reviews are no longer solely based in plot, and therefore NOTPLOT is no longer a concern, in my view. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to WP:NOTPLOT we also got a WP:MILL problem, nothing indicates more than routine coverage(contemporary reviews followed by nothing else) that would allow this to pass WP:GNG. Redirect..Lurking shadow (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Technically notable per WP:GNG (a guideline), but currently fails WP:NOTPLOT (a policy). Sandstein 10:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]