Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issues addressed in Nip/Tuck

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. Willing to entertain options for using the content elsewhere on my talkpage, but the consensus is that the article should not exist in its present form on en-wiki Fritzpoll (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed in Nip/Tuck

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

Whole lot of OR, no references whatsoever. The list itself seems to be on the crufty side to me; I know of no precedent for an "Issues addressed in" article. Remurmur (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge; a discussion of the topics and audience/societal reaction to them is appropriate for this controversial show, but this doesn't seem like the right format for such an article(s). References are the episodes themselves so sourcing seems OK to me, but where's the source for the claim that addressing these issues is notable (i.e. has been noted)? I think that's likely sourceable but don't see it here. Is this a breakout of Nip/Tuck#Controversy for length? Were all these truly controversial? That seems unlikely. JJL (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork, unsourced, would set a horrible precedent. To top it off, one would need a third party, reliable source saying that the concept of issues addressed in the show was itself notable. If there were any sources for this sort of material then it must be treated in the main article--it's precisely the kind of real world info these articles often lack. Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. This is a very interesting one to discuss. Whether or not the article was originally spun off the main article, it is now too large to merge in full. Any re-merger would have to be very selective, perhaps picking a few items that had WP:RS for third party commentary, therefore demonstrating notability. This seems a shame because the content is interesting, and I agree with JJL that the use of primary sources seems sufficient; it's just the WP:N policy that stands in the way. If not Wikipedia, there is a fan wiki, so transwiki to http://niptuck.wikia.com - Fayenatic (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (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.