Talk:Agent Afloat (NCIS)

Article issues

This article has some issues that need to be addressed. The first is that of notability. As it is now, the article fails to establish any notability. It is merely a plot summary and, as was explained numerous times at Talk:List of NCIS episodes, Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. It is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own. As per WP:PLOT, "a concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work" but, on its own, the plot does not establish notability. As it says in the {{notability}} tag that kepps getting removed, notability needs to be established by adding reliable, secondary sources. At the moment, there are none. More on this later.

The plot summary in this article is not concise by any means. It needs to be pruned and appropriate information concerning "the reception, impact, and significance" of the episode must be added.

A third issue is that of references. I've already mentioned that reliable, secondary sources do not exist in the article. Of the two references that do exist in the article, one is a primary source. The other (cbsncis.wetpaint.com) is a fan wiki that anyone can edit and so it is not a reliable source. Open wikis such as cbsncis.wetpaint.com are questionable, self-published sources and are generally not acceptable. The expansion of this article will require much better sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, where possible. One could argue that the availability of English sources is a litmus test for notability. If no English language sources are available then the episode probably isn't notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to your contention that the episode Agent Afloat does not fit the standards of notability or "by any means" is significant enough to warrant a page in Wikipedia, I must disagree, and feel your reasons are not valid enough to DELETE the page, but it appears YOU ARE THE BOSS ON BOARD THIS SHIP AND WHAT YOU DICTATE must be THE LAW, for you seem to believe that the references listed in this article are substandard, I can only add, with a pair of fresh eyes, that I found the synopsis most relevent and factually supported: moreover, its relevence to any U.S. Citizen is very much apparent--Citizens of our nation, and personnel in our military are very keenly aware of the prospects that something of the nature of what could have transpired in this episode, or worse, are very probably, and contingencies must be taken to educate and inform the population, in general, through any means, even through a (derided?) television show episode, of this growing reality. And simply because the previous author(s) may have cited "foreign" sources do not necessarily make the foreign sources inappropriate: that would be a very arrogant stance to assume, for the show is internationally popular, viewed in many foreign locals, especially those venues where there is an American Military Installation, and AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio and Television Services) is in Italy, so Italians can see the show, and MANY may even "have a different, or a rather unique take" altogether unknown on the surface, to you, with regards to this subject, and in any case, different from an American's, or, as in your case, an Australian's, for it is American war ships which patrol the Mediterranian Sea and other waters, and they view our presence entirely different. LtColArnold talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

With all due respect, nothing of what you have said establishes why the subject of this article is notable enough to warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. As for the reference to foreign sources, you've completely missed the point. This is an English language program, produced in an English language country. It stands to reason that there should be plenty of English language sources to choose from if the article is notable. If there aren't, then the chances that this episodes is any more notable than the other 132 episodes that aren't notable, then notability is virtually nil. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend, there is nothing particularly notable about this episode. It could be argued that Tony returning is notable, but he was away for one episode and he still appeared in it. My problem with this article is more to do with the way it is written. It does not sound like an encyclopedia article, it is written more like a fan re-telling the story. There is too many pointless details and not enough of the important facts and the resonings behind their importance. This article needs to either be completly re-written or deleted. I vote for option 2, as there are no other episodes in series 6 with articles (despite there being some more important episodes) Amzon (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that turning it into a redirect, as has been done with most of the other articles, is probably more appropriate. That would be the fastest option and, if somebody wants to resurrect the article in the future and rewrite it properly, they can use the curreent version as a starting point. Since nothing has been done for a while, despite encouragement, I don't see why it should be delayed. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

NCIS

I feel this show is very outstanding. I have very creative ideas and would to discusss them in a letter or private to the director of this show. My son loves your show and charachters he is 8 years old and is into acting "awsome". However there are several ideas I would love to run by the director and discuss I feel rating will go up also. Sincerely Michelle Haren/Priemer 119010manier rd Atlanta Michigan 49709 989-785-2879 989-217-1331 c ell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.199.211 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)