Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command Decision (Dad's Army episode)

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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Command Decision (Dad's Army episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable tv episode that is mostly a WP:PLOT. This has been tagged for clean-up since July (although the tag has been removed a number of times). There has been no serious effort at addressing the notability issue, so I assume it really can't be done. The only relevant source used is a book by the director and writers of the show; hardly an independent source. Jack Merridew 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:POINT-y nomination. Note that the nominator has reverted after I have added further sources as requested in the notability tag. [1] Also see Talk:Command Decision (Dad's Army episode). Catchpole (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Your point-y characterization is mere bad faith. I having been seeking to have this article cleaned-up for six months. The source I moved to the main show page did not speak to this show episode in any specific manner (not as you were using it, at least). You have been attempting to "establish notability" by plastering general references into articles. --Jack Merridew 11:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You claim a book entitled Dad's Army has nothing to say about episodes of Dad's Army. You'll have to run that logic by me again. Catchpole (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing out my typo; I've changed "show" to "episode" above. However, you are being disingenuous, as I was clear in my edit summary and in my post to you on the article talk page. --Jack Merridew 11:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Panic! I have added a cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Which I just cleaned-up a bit; thanks. If people would respond to clean-up tags by cleaning-up instead of just removing the tags or offering trivial coverage, fewer articles would end up at AfD. That said, your source is still rather trivial in regard to this specific episode. --Jack Merridew 11:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a reference to the episode in this book. I don't have a copy myself so will leave the cite to someone else. So, I've already found two references in reliable sources. This demonstrates that the assumption in the nomination is incorrect. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Now has sources, at worst redirect to the list of episodes page. Lugnuts (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You do realize that notability is not based on just having a few little numbers scattered around, correct? "Now has sources" is irrelevant when neither provides any context. TTN (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The article that I cited references the episode in the context of some actual history of the Home Guard. That's the sort of real-world context that we like to see in addition to a synopsis of the plot. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it references the series in that context. The episode is just a random mention at the bottom that has nothing to do with the actual article. This would help with the main article, but it provides nothing at all to this single episode. TTN (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It demonstrates that this episode in particular has been noticed. The quality of the writing is unimportant. Presumably, unlike us, the journalist had a deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it shows that they needed an example, and they choose a random episode (perhaps a favorite of one of the staff) to do so. If the episode had something specific that related to the article, then you would have an argument. TTN (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete. It does not have sources. It has the usual generic info and one single article calling it a classic. And looking at the article, "classic" is just being used as a descriptive word that was probably randomly thrown in to provide some "class." I would at least expect a personal comment for it to be considered relevant. TTN (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument does not make sense. First you claim the article has not sources. Then you go on to discuss the sources used. Catchpole (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I expect that he is discriminating between reliable sources and inadequate sources. But, of course, you knew that. --Jack Merridew 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  But the article has several reliable sources. Command Decision (Dad's Army episode)#Further reading. Catchpole (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Quit trolling; you're linking to the section I just created and you know it. --Jack Merridew 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE with no assertion of notability and mostly just plot from the two versions, with "references" from primary materials. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  My addition was intended to be an assertion of notability - that the episode is classic. The original viewing figure of 8.6 million is an implicit assertion of notability, being a significant fraction of the UK population. WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE are both disputed guidelines. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The Sun is read by nearly 8 million people every day. Does this mean that we should create an article for "The Sun, January 10 2008" and "The Sun, January 11 2008"? No, it means that The Sun is a popular newspaper, just like Dad's Army was a popular series, and is a reason to create articles for the newspaper and the TV series as a whole. To have articles for individual issues, episodes, football matches, and so on, we need to have reliable in depth sources specifically about these issues, episodes, ... WP:NOTE is not really disputed, so we can simply apply the criteria set out there.Fram (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Individual issues of newspapers certainly can be notable, see Image:The Sun Gotcha.jpg It is routine for the contents of the day's newspapers to reviewed in daily TV and radio reports. There are also more considered digests such as What the Papers Say. And then there are derivative works like Have I Got News for You. So, if one wanted to find secondary sources for a particular issue of the Sun, it could be quite feasible. An episode of Dad's Army is even more notable because it gets a significant audience when it is repeated and so the total number of views for an episode like this must be about 100 million. My view is that each episode is a small play and a play with viewing figures on this scale seems evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep whether to merge with other episodes is a editing decision to be dealt with by consensus at the article. DGG (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an obviously pointy nomination by Jack Merridew who has been stalking various Dad's Army articles for ages even though they are more than adequately sourced, despite the false claim of the nominator. Tim! (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is a point here, it is that the article is not adequately sourced; please find a reliable source that comments in a non-trivial manner about this specific episode. --Jack Merridew 08:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if you stopped edit warring (violating 3rr in the process), you might have noticed that your assumption about the source "McCann, Graham (2001). Dad's Army: The story of a classic television show. Fourth Estate. ISBN 1-84115-308-7. " was wrong, because it does actually cover individual episodes. Tim! (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - flimsy nomination based on a personal interpretation of our dysfunctional fiction guidelines. In addition to the books already mentioned, there is also Dad's Army: A Companion and Dad's Army: The Making Of A Television Legend. This show was huge in its day; each episode was reviewed in the press of the time. I assume none of the delete votes are from UK editors.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Also: Dad's Army: A Celebration.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You have to actually show that these actually provide information relevant to this single episode. While books like these sometime have good information, it's usually based on the full series rather than single episodes. TTN (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No I don't. We merely need to decide that it is probable. Which it is, if you look at the blurbs on Amazon or Bookfinder.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless you can provide specific quotes saying "All episodes have full coverage and detailed production information", nothing is probable when it comes to books like these. TTN (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when is "probable" and inferences derived from blurbs on Amazon considered a substitute for researching reliable sources? Pairadox (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Contrary to the fiction deletionist ideology, it's quite legit to make judgement calls as to the probable existence of printed sources. Especially for pre-Internet fiction like this.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's twice that you've indicated that certain ideologies are unqualified to render proper judgement on this. One doesn't have to be from the UK (or an inclusionist) to understand that in order for a book to be used as a source, that book must actually have been read and material from incorporated into the article. If that isn't done then it's not a source, it's a guess. Pairadox (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reviewing the LOE page, it is quite informative so it is unclear why individual episode articles that clearly cannot aspire to the assertion of real-world notability persist. They should be changed into redirects. Bringing an article to AfD that clearly fails guidelines and policies is hardly WP:POINT and whether a show was popular or not - (see WP:ATA - cannot alleviate the requirement to demonstrate notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The LOE is a featured list and covers the episodes adequately - which is to say, well. --Jack Merridew 08:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - independent source. too big to be incorporated onto LOE (agree it is a nice list). Speaking of systemic bias, we have to be wary of recentism. I am sure many editors weren't born when this was around. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. The Simpsons episodes have good articles because the sources are easy to find to provide tons of background & reviews. Finding such sources, while they exist, is more difficult for older programmes like this. Wikipedia should not be year-biased, which is what we are endangered of becoming. All these articles, like Fawlty Towers, are from very popular and successful sitcoms of their day, and should be kept. Wikipedia has no finish-by-date, and these can be improved. We could of course spend more time doing so if certain editors did go and round and do disruptive things like this. Why don't they try and improve an article?--UpDown (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A good example is the The Phil Silvers Show which is highly notable (was #1 in a Radio Times chart of top sitcoms) but doesn't even have an article for a list of episodes. This is obviously because it was a 50's show. We should be capturing such info while we can. Deleting the good info that we already have is like the foolishness of the BBC who deleted many episodes of classic shows before coming to their senses. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional keep as long as the sources from the two independent books are added Will ^(talk) 12:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons given above.--UpDown (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 5 days to establish notability, otherwise redirect to the LoE that already covers this episode. If notability/real-world information truly exists (which I can't check), then the article can be resurrected with the appropriate sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The newspaper reference is a mention, not a reference. Like most episodes of most series, it essentially isn't possible to demonstrate that an individual episode is notable. I see no reason to believe that reliable sources of real-world impact of this episode that discuss the episode directly and in detail can be found. If they can be, resurrect the article at that time.Kww (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to LoE if Notability is not established. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve - is not 'simply a plot' and should be much more than it is now.--Alf ^melmac 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be plenty of reason to believe notability (and references) exist. Especially given the timeframe of this article, it is a good enough reason to keep. Sources should be added ASAP. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, 2000 ghits for "Comand Decision" "Dad's Army". Not bad for something from 1974 and shows evidence that notability may exist. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2008 (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.