Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Eye Abides the Heart

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Eye Abides the Heart

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Do we really need an article on a single episode of Pretty Little Liars. I can't believe this is notable. I am not seeing it in the WP:RS cited. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see a similar article from same series I simultaneously submitted for deletition: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/It_Happened_'That_Night' --David Tornheim (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep I don't like it isn't an appropriate deletion rationale. Try again, and be more specific about why you want this deleted. Not seeing any RS issues with this article at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf:Not seeing any RS issues with this article at all. You are kidding, right? So do you think these citations that in the article are high quality WP:RS sufficient for inline citations and/or notability:

https://www.facebook.com/littleliars/ -- Facbook for Little Liars
1st Twitter post
2nd Twitter post
Instagram #1
Instagram #2
3rd Twitter post
Soundtrack on Tunefeed

That is half of the citations for the article. I'm very much looking forward to hearing why you think these are high quality reliable sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim It's worth noting that this argument isn't the strongest (see: WP:NEXIST), but I'm erring on the side of your nomination, because I can find very little outside of the citations that you mentioned. I have found sources that discuss this particular episode, but they're all episode recaps that frankly don't seem to me to establish notability, that is they only provide WP:PLOT and don't actually present any reason why the episode should be considered notable. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume your vote is delete? Could you take a look another similar article I simultaneously voted for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/It_Happened_'That_Night'. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just getting to that. Of course it needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and I would be frankly dumbstruck if such a noteworthy, universally acclaimed episode weren't up there with the likes of "Ozymandias", "The Contest", "The Nightman Cometh", and "The Inner Light". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Current sources are completely bereft of notability per WP:GNG. This isn't necessarily a problem of notability on its own (see: WP:NEXIST), but effectively the only sources I can find outside of the existing ones are episode recaps written by fans of the show for online magazines. Because they're simple plot recaps, they don't actually say anything about the notability of the episode, and thus I can find essentially nothing that even marginally advances this subject's notability. This article seems more suited to the Pretty Little Liars Wikia. See also: WP:PLOT. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable episode. Tweeter or Instagram is certainly not even in the same universe as high quality. These two, facebook and Pretty Little Liars.com. are primary sources, do not advance notability, and they account for over 45% of the listed references. In checking the rest there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish any notability. The entire plot section is unsourced that brings up concerns of original research. Otr500 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2019 (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.