Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Whole New Whirled

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. A merge discussion can take place on the relevant talk pages. ✗plicit 13:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Whole New Whirled (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)

The entire content of this page is already written in Peacemaker season 1. Almost every section of "Production" talks about details that involve the entire season and not specifically the first episode of it. Even the "Critical reception" section talks about the first three episode and not of this episode individually. If we don't want to cancel this page, I think that we could easily merge some information (like the Critical reception) into Peacemaker season 1. But I don't think that this first episode is independently notable. Redjedi23 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability is met. Nom appears to miss specific commentary on the introduction of the bald eagle character, and commentary on multiple (3) episodes still addresses the topic directly and in detail, so GNG remains met. This appears to be a perfectly reasonable and policy-compliant episode page, appropriate for the pilot of a series. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The making of Eagly could be put in the season's page since the character appears throughout the entire season, it is not a pilot-specific detail. The commentary on the first three episode could be easily merged into the "Critical reception" section of Peacemaker season 1. That section has even a notice that asks the editor to expand it, so that commentary could even help that page. Redjedi23 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could be != must be. In fact, could be != should be. You're making a valid editorial argument, but arguing that it should be enforced by deletion, when in fact this article meets the expectations for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a well-sourced page for an evidently notable subject. If the problem is that there's too much overlap with other pages, that's something that can be fixed by normal editing. Each episode of the series received coverage, and therefore they all have pages; it would be silly to delete the first episode just because it was released in conjunction with the second and third. Toughpigs (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I checked the other two pages and the situation is even worse. A duplicate of the Critical reception section and nothing that couldn't be easily merged into Peacemaker season 1 :/ Redjedi23 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seeing that all other S1 episodes have stand-alone articles that are (at least on a superficial level) properly sourced and encyclopedic, deletion feels completely wrong. If anything, a merge discussion (to reduce redundancy) could be started concerning all S1 episode articles. But that's at an editorial level, not a job for AFD. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:59, 16 August 2024 (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.