Todd Allen wrote:
There's nothing wrong with redirecting tons of
permastubs to a single,
manageable list. That would be true of stars in a galaxy, or tiny
towns in a county, or episodes in a TV series, or albums from a band
when the albums themselves have received little or no coverage, or the
majority of players on a sports team, or.... Most of those things have
little to no secondary source material, so a list makes far more sense
than a thousand articles that will never get better, and may have
inexperienced editors look at them, decide they're "too short", and
put in a bunch of unreferenced speculation/original
research/trivia/"Family Guy mentioned it once!". If it turns out an
element or two of the list gets enough source material to write a good
article on it, it can easily be split out, while leaving the rest of
the list items as redirects. That's simply good organization.
In most of those cases it's possible to put in a lot of material that
you would dismiss as "unreferenced speculation/original
research/trivia" but which is IMO (and I the O of a lot of other
editors) perfectly reasonable and valuable information to have in an
article. For example, a plot summary and cast listing of a TV episode is
neither unreferenced nor original research nor trivia.
By smushing everything together into one giant list page a lot of that
information is going to be thrown away. I think you're going to have to
come up with a reason for throwing that information away beyond simply
asserting that it's "non-notable". The validity of judging things based
on their "notability" is what's under discussion here, you can't just
assume it.