Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blowback (FlashForward)

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 consensus‎. Whether to redirect can continue editorially. A consensus isn't going to emerge to delete this. Star Mississippi 14:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blowback (FlashForward) (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)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ridiculous BEFORE fail, Donaldd23: EW, IGN, and Den of Geek. There are plenty more, but these are a 2 minute attempt at WP:THREE. Please withdraw this nomination and go fix the article by editing it to include the RS commentary that you were sufficiently sure did not exist. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidence appears to be that the nom was flat-out wrong and didn't conduct a proper WP:BEFORE. With several reliably soured reviews, the episode appears notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to FlashForward#Episodes where it already has an entry. Nothing to merge, article is mainly unsourced fancruft. Unneeded CFORK which fails GNG, routine episode synops do not demonstrate notability.  // Timothy :: talk  06:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to FlashForward#Episodes, where the episode is already listed. Article consists mainly of unsourced fancruft, as mentioned above, so no need for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural Keep User:Donaldd23 nominated 5 articles for deletion in a 6-minute period. They have a history of not doing a proper BEFORE, and they continue to break Wikipedia policy with these nominations. Nfitz (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• BEFOREs don't need to be done immediately before I nominate. I do a batch of BEFOREs and then go and nominate the articles, improve the article and remove the notability tags, or do nothing because I didn't find enough to either improve or delete. Where is the policy that I am breaking by listing these deletions all at once? Maybe you cannot do research on multiple items and then come back to Wikipedia and present your findings, but I can. Your rationale for Keep is incorrect. Maybe you should do a BEFORE and check my talk page where I have been THANKED for doing proper BEFOREs. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies, I realise now that I was thinking of someone else. Now I look like a dick ... I'll withdraw my comment.

• Keep That said User:Donaldd23, it's apparent from the GNG references Jclemens provided the day this was nominated, that it IS a BEFORE failure. And I find it ironic that you object to my (incorrect) comment, but ignore the proof already provided that this is a BEFORE fail! I'm puzzled why you'd ever delete this rather than redirecting. Nfitz (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a REDIRECT to the series or season page would be a viable WP:ATD DonaldD23 talk to me 20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Sources found by Jclemens seem sufficient, and there is a reception section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 7 May 2023 (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.