Talk:The Storm/The Eye (Stargate Atlantis)
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Storm)
From VfD:
Has no content. The program hasn't even aired yet. RickK 19:10, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. - I created a handful of Stargate Atlantis episode articles in anticiption of their airing. The firt of the unaired episodes (Hide and Seek) airs tonight. If The Storm/The Eye (Stargate Atlantis) is unacceptable, then at what point is the cut off? One week? One month? - UtherSRG 19:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Somebody was just complaining about a lack of a standard format for TV episodes; here someone tries to put in a template and it goes on vfd in a few hours. I see nothing wrong with episode articles coming on line as soon as an episode is known to exist. Jgm 19:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. stub != deletion candidate!!! Bacchiad
- It is not a stub. It contains no text. This is the same as if the article were empty. RickK 23:44, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
- It's not the same. There is info in the infobox. The relevance of the information to the episode in relationship to the other episodes is unclear at this time, as is appropriate. What is still not clear to me is why you singled out only that episode should be here on VfD and not any of the others, particularly the one immediately preceeding it. - UtherSRG 23:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It is not a stub. It contains no text. This is the same as if the article were empty. RickK 23:44, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete placeholder. Would be the same if someone created an empty article / template for 2005 Election results. SWAdair | Talk 03:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Pointless. Delete. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 11:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It will be filled soon enough. What's the hurry? Gamaliel 14:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Then it can be recreated when there is information to put in it. RickK 21:53, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Why bother? Why not just save the effort and leave it? Gamaliel 15:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Why do we want empty articles? Lucky6.9 is having to redo several articles by what he calls the "B movie vandal" which actually contain text, just little of it. Why is that unacceptable, but a completely empty article is acceptable? Why don't we just go ahead now and create empty articles for all of the red links on lists of upcoming movies? RickK 19:52, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Not having seen those articles, I can't judge their acceptability. I just don't see this one as empty, I don't have a problem with stubs for upcoming shows/movies/whatever, and I don't see the need to delete this particular article. Gamaliel 21:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I repeat. This is not a stub. A stub has content. This article has zero content. RickK 04:51, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Who is the writer of the episode? The director? The guest star? What will be the previous episode? What season will it be aired? The article des have some small amount of content. Are you unable to read the text in the infobox? I ask again, why have you only brought this episode to VfD and not any of the other episode stubs I made at the same time? - UtherSRG 05:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I repeat. This is not a stub. A stub has content. This article has zero content. RickK 04:51, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Not having seen those articles, I can't judge their acceptability. I just don't see this one as empty, I don't have a problem with stubs for upcoming shows/movies/whatever, and I don't see the need to delete this particular article. Gamaliel 21:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Why do we want empty articles? Lucky6.9 is having to redo several articles by what he calls the "B movie vandal" which actually contain text, just little of it. Why is that unacceptable, but a completely empty article is acceptable? Why don't we just go ahead now and create empty articles for all of the red links on lists of upcoming movies? RickK 19:52, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Why bother? Why not just save the effort and leave it? Gamaliel 15:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Then it can be recreated when there is information to put in it. RickK 21:53, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. And delete anything else of this kind. When someone has an article to write, let them write it at that time. We wouldn't allow stubs with only a template for aircraft or battlecrusiers or European monarchs or living organisms or asteroids or television episodes or films that have already been shown. Why should the procedure different for television episodes and films that have not been shown? Jallan 23:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not reserved seating. Denni☯ 02:10, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
- Sheepish delete. The template looks good, the author is organized, and this will make a good article soon enough. But I agree that putting up a skeleton article place-holder well in advance isn't a precident that we should be encouraging. It's not a stub, but rather it's a reserved parking space for something that hasn't become notable yet. If something was known about it, then it would be OK, because it would be like an article on an upcoming movie (short synopsis, list of stars, release date, etc). If this is here to remind people to fill out the article when the episode nears/airs, then a red link to it on the Stargate Atlantis list of episodes is an adequate reminder. Perhaps the author should prepare these template articles in User space and then move them once they get some content. - Eisnel 18:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion