Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tick, Tick, Tick... (Castle)

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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick, Tick, Tick... (Castle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

In 83 episodes, this is the only episode of "Castle" that has its own Wikipedia page. It is the first half of a two-part episode, and the second part does not have its own page. This two-part episode is not very notable; it does not affect any of the ongoing storylines or mythology of the series. The only case for notability is that it is the first two-part episode the series has aired, but this is not a new concept in television — series air two- or even three-part episodes all the time, and have done for years. It is also a very obscure page; this log shows that the only links are on the episode list page and four user pages.

I cannot find any prior discussion among regular editors of the "Castle" pages that suggest "Tick, Tick, Tick ..." needs its own page, and if such a discussion were started, then I am reasonably certain that consensus would either disagree with the idea of dedicated pages for episodes, or only agree on dedicated pages for important episodes, and "Tick, Tick, Tick ..." does not fit that description. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perhaps the plot section should be trimmed, but in general TV episode pages are fine, and this one does have sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It passes notability on sourcing grounds, and probably by inheritance (these types of spin-off articles are needed due to article-length limits). It's true it is the only episode article for the series, but it was created this year. Maybe it will set a precedent and others will pick it up over the next couple years to create more episode articles. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment of the references, only the Entertainment Weekly story contains substantial discussion of this episode. I think it's questionable whether the number/depth of sources meets notability guidelines. So the main reason to keep it is as a spin-out from List of Castle episodes? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I helped create this article because the episode it discusses is notable for being the highest rated Castle show and the highest in the time-slot in ten years at the time. While I expected Tsybes to do more with it, I think there is enough added there to keep it. More cites could be added though. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2012 (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.