See also WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It remains my conviction that notability guidelines are overly programatic and number-based ways of dealing with something that is best dealt with via context and judgment. Deletion decisions should not be made by robots, and this guideline, like most of our notability guidelines, proposes to do just that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Phil. Hiding T 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree, but that's a whole change in attitude for wikipedia, which is right now wading toward a thicket of guidelines. Probably something that needs to be raised on the policy pump for broader discussion: how to handle policies & guidelines. My own view: have a very few policies that are short statements of principle; have as many guidelines as useful that are very specific & nuanced, and, most importantly, rely on lots of examples; and clearly distinguish between policy, which should be prescriptive, and guidelines, which should be descriptive (except for style guidelines). --Lquilter (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not even aware this page was created. We still do not have any consensus on the necessity of such a guideline. I agree with the editors above that see a strong push to make Wikipedia a rule-filled bureaucracy where no editorial decisions need to be made. Is it black or white, on or off, notable or not? This future wikipedia can be produced entirely by bots. I rant all of this to say, we have no need for this instruction creep. Ursasapien (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The intent of this guideline was that several people are complaining that WP:EPISODE is doing double duty as both a MOS and notability, which creates confusion. Because there are more than just fictional works that are presented in an episodic format, it seems to make sense to take the notability parts of EPISODE, and expand it to include any serialized work. I will also point out that ultimately, these all say the same as WP:N - significant coverage in secondary sources - just that the method of application is given guidance. --MASEM 14:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]