You're welcome to try, but I'm not sure how successful that will be
for -all- of them. You can't blindly defend all episode articles and
expect them to all have the same conditions. Personally, I do think we
are in a time where real-world information is growing about
entertainment, and we will get more real-world information about TV
shows. But even then, it doesn't always mean that information is best
represented in a per-episode format. For example, if that information
can apply to more than one episode, or is more about a character than
a specific episode, etc.
Still, that's not to say that it isn't possible. The series of The
Simpsons episode articles continue to surprise me. I think they have
something like 60 GA articles, and a hand full of FAs. However, even
if every episode of a show has shown reasonable potential, that
doesn't always mean that the existing summary is even worth saving.
Some of them are nothing more than a few sentences that are copied off
the List_of article.
Recently, since I've become more familiar with moving stuff over to
external wikis (mainly Wikia), I've realized there should be extra
care taken when you have something that people have worked on for a
while. There really isn't any reason why we can't have a place for
everything. (and in a perfect world, the Wikimedia Foundation would
have some kind of fiction-wiki, given how high-traffic those articles
are.) When I come across articles that have a reasonable number of
edits, and good quality summaries, I myself will not take those to AfD
(unless a total transwiki, with article history, is possible and done).
If you want to establish that a group of articles should remain, then
the best way to do that is to show reasonable potential for real-world
information that would justify those articles. The "cabal" is only
trying to improve our coverage on fiction, rather than being buried
under a sea of summary that does a poor job compared to the show itself.
-- Ned Scott
On Dec 29, 2007, at 8:27 PM, David Goodman wrote:
Yes. Nathan is right that the better strategy is to
defend the
existing articles, and so establish that such articles should remain
on wikipedia. A more widespread intelligent selective good-faith
participation in afds is the ordinary wikipedians defense against
cabals.
And the best of all is to improve existing articles so people will be
ashamed even to nominate them--or if they still do, we will establish
a solid pattern of snow keep closes.