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 delete. If someone wishes to develop this content for a merger to an existing article, I would be willing to provide a userspace copy, but there is clear consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web extra[edit]

Web extra (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)

This term (or jargon) seems to me to be a definition. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. " Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it seems like this had very little attention since its 2011 creation, so the question is "what are those called now, and where can/should we merge it?" as I don't recall ever hearing this term. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NEOLOGISM I found a total of 7 pages on IMDB that contain the term "web extra". — Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but expand scope and consider renaming: The article as currently written seems to have a narrow focus on talk shows, but this is a vastly broader and more important concept, which is only growing in importance as physical media recedes and streaming really takes over. The list of series that have already used this, even in the relatively short era of streaming so far, seems almost endless. However, I'm not providing sources this time for two reasons:
  1. It is blatantly obvious that this is a fundamental concept in the TV industry, and has been such ever since Internet connections were fast and reliable enough for such production to become technically and financially viable. Because of its very ubiquity, it is unlikely that many sources specifically about this exist – but that does not exclude significant coverage in sources on other topics (which would likely be more difficult to find searching for this topic).
  2. It is not clear whether "web extra" is the correct term to use as the article title. Similar terms floating around include "web exclusive" and "webisode", for just a couple of examples. However, lack of standardization on a term does not mean the subject of the article is not notable – if no standard term exists we should pick the most common one per WP:COMMONNAME. Modernponderer (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a webisode article already- A webisode is an episode of a series that is distributed as part of a web series or on streaming television. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Brunnock, thanks for pointing that out! It somehow didn't occur to me to check whether those titles already had articles (interestingly it seems even "web exclusive" once had a primitive page)... I could certainly support a merger, but only if it's actually a merger with an expanded scope and not "let's just redirect the smaller page to the larger one, since nobody will miss it anyways" as seems to happen too often. Modernponderer (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging User:Jclemens, who suggested a merger – would this be an acceptable target in your view? Modernponderer (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, merger to Webisode sounds like a great idea to my non-expert review. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Web-related deletion discussions. brunnock
• Merge to Webisode per above arguments. Looks like WP:DICDEF to me. SBKSPP (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a definition without sources and not an encyclopedic topic. I recognize that it is a distinct concept. If this is merged it could go to Editor's cut. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluerasberry, your rationale makes sense to me (although I still think the article could be expanded to address it), but I don't understand why the bolded !vote is "delete" when the rationale seems to justify a merger instead. I'm also confused how editor's cut could be a better merge target than webisode, considering both article scope and the fact that the former page seems to have virtually the same issues as this one (so merged content may well end up deleted there later). Could you please elaborate? Modernponderer (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: Sure both good questions. "Delete" is my preference because this fails WP:GNG. However, this is a familiar and fundamental concept; dictionary concepts like this are often so obvious that despite appearing everywhere, there are no sources describing them because there is not much to say about the concept and defining it gives all the information typical people want to know. I often find core concepts like this missing from Wikipedia, especially around new technology. If this is to be merged, I think it should go into "editor's cut", which is a higher level concept which includes web extras, archive extras, and other extras, as well as any other kind of working notes for video, writing, or whatever. As you note, "editor's cut" also has no citations because it is one of those dictionary concepts. If someone nominated that for deletion I would defend it but it fails GNG, but maybe somehow in all its subparts together someone could find sources. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it still seems to be used on CNN.com as recently as 2022; this appears to be an extended DICDEF if that makes sense. I remember it from the early days of the internet, akin to DVD extras now. Leaning weak delete as I don't find any sources beyond websites using the term. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no sources and WP:NOTDICT Idevjoe (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2022 (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.