Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep whether or not to merge can be discussed at a more appropriate venue. (NAC) RMHED. 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

Tom Tucker (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• malformed afd nom, completed by Hiding T 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a character list Sceptre ^(talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to
  List of characters from Family Guy#Channel 5 (WQHG); minor character(s). JJL (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I tihnk there are enough sources.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As a TV episode writer, I'm going to have to disagree. Search results can be deceiving. Often, I find dozens of sources, of which I can only use a handful. First page of results indicates mention in passing, or as a list of characters, and as it's sorted by relevance... it's not going to get better on page 2. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a heavily trimmed version back into the character list. A paragraph giving a quick overview is appropriate; this long, unsourced bit of trivia and plot summary is not. Reyk _YO! 03:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and then consider whether to Merge, into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. I'd certainly say he's not appropriate for a full article, but this isnt the place. DGG (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'd "certainly say he's not appropriate for a full article", this Keep vote would seem to be a bit
    WP:POINTed. I understand that as an Admin you do not need to be told this—is your intention to break the AfD process so that articles like this are not taken to AfD? I'm sorry that I find it hard to come up with good-faith explanations for this vote. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I !voted this way because i follow WP:Deletion policy, that deletion is a last resort.. AfD is a discussion about whether articles should be deleted, not whether they should be merged. Articles should not even be brought here if merge is a reasonable solution. If we're going to discuss all merges here, the system will collapse under the weight. Satisfied about my good faith? DGG (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a problem with this, and if we don't come to a quick agreement within this thread, I think it is sufficiently disruptive to RfC on (provided I find the time to gather diffs and so forth).

Normally when an article about TV show element (such at this article) is proposed for Merge, the staunch defenders of crufty crap (typically a coalition of that article's editors with

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers

seldom attracts much comment, AfD is not a bad place to discuss proposed Merges when such objections are likely.

Now you're saying Keep for the sole reason that you object to this venue. This is breaking this AfD procedure to prove a point outside this AfD discussion, thus

WP:POINT. If this came from certain editors (oh, Pixelface for example), it wouldn't be worth a mention. But an Admin is doing this. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see the

WP:POINT problem in what you said but I only see a bit of pedantry in what DGG said. A Merge/Redirect is a form of Keep. That having been said, it is true that attempts to actually perform a merge are sometimes stifled by an article's defenders, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. JJL (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: deletion argument could theoretically apply to any article regarding series/episode-based fiction. It's weak because this article could easily be brought up to standards with a few hours of work. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sez who? This AfD is 5 days old, and has been templated for {{
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; and yes, many existing TV-based articles should be deleted or merged. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Possible merge - As with Herbert (Family Guy), I think this could be tossed into a list. Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  List of characters in Family Guy. No need for a character spinout article without significant real-world information. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Peregrine Fisher and Bahamut0013.
  talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, noticeable character, he seems to be in all episodes. —
  talk) 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, he is a recurring character and he is notable enough.Smallman12q (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also afd nom for

Herbert (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included on the
  talk) 17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Family Guy list. Family Guy character articles are seriously allows to go unchecked - as it stands, not one single article about a Family Guy character discusses their importance in the real world, so why would you even suggest that this recurring character is notable? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And I really find the "it could be notable in a few hours!" argument weak. It's February 21, two days after the comment was made, so either it can't be done in a few hours or the user who made the comment doesn't plan to do this ever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable character, and some will find this information interesting to read. Dream Focus 11:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At what point is "it's notable because I said so" an argument? People are very well able to SAY the character's notable, but the buck definitely stops at "proving it". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I just want to make it known to whomever closes this discussion that no advocate for keeping the article in its current state have used any guideline or policy properly, asserting notability but not establishing this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  exported. edg ☺ ☭ 08:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect or
  smerge to the list of characters for FG. There is no evidence that this character is covered in significant detail by reliable sources independent from the subject. A web search is not promising. 30,100 hits, but most from the first 3-5 pages seem to be quote farms or non-RS coverage. The text string shows up in google books, but coverage of the character appears absent from even the "official episode guide" of Family Guy (which wouldn't count as independent, but it would be better than nothing). Lulz. there is a scholar hit. But it is from a student paper that got indexed in scholar. Protonk (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Mariah-Yulia. — Jake Wartenberg 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.