Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Frink

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. Overwhelming consensus to keep the majority of characters. Merge discussions should take place on the talkpages where still desired. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Frink[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appearing in a few episodes of the Simpsons and having a little blurb in books about the Simpsons doesn’t make you notable. I’m nominating this and a few other ancillary Simpsons characters without substantial third-party coverage (or even substantial appearances in the series) for deletion. These characters all have Wikia articles; if people want to find about them, they can a) go there, or b) Go to the general characters article, where some of their content should be merged when they’re axed. Purple backpack89 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are also ancillary and poorly-referenced Simpsons characters (of these, Wolfcastle’s only been in ten episodes, and Radioactive in three):

Merge to List of recurring characters in The Simpsons. There are many recurring characters of that show listed in there without separate articles, and the articles that were named for deletion here should be merged into that article. --Slon02 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think some development/reception info is available for each of these characters. (In most of the articles, it's already there.) I'm not going to make a long argument for each one at the moment, but I at least want to mention that Radioactive Man was a real-world comic published by Bongo Comics: [1] [2] Plus, here's a quote from Neil Steinberg that I think is pretty sharp:
"There isn't room in 10 columns to discuss the delights of the Simpsons . So I will limit myself to one observation, based on an ad for the new movie, which opens Friday. The ad shows the residents of Springfield lined up to buy tickets. There are 48 characters behind Homer, and if I couldn't name every single one, I could name most and knew the personalities of the rest. That's astounding. Most novels fail to offer up even one strong, memorable character, never mind 49. There aren't that many multi-layered, deeply nuanced worlds in literature -- Proust's Combray, Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. Springfield, wherever it may be, is surely one of them." [3]
Zagalejo^^^ 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor Frink, who does have some good third-party sourcing, and almost certainly could get more, maybe keep Radioactive Man. Merge the rest to List of recurring characters in The Simpsons. I don't really see the point in wasting time with an AFD. If the articles go, they will be merged, not deleted, so why not just start a merge discussion? Gran² 19:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now. AfD is not the right place for this. A merge discussion should be held at WP:DOH. I think it's very rude of the nominator to nominate all of these articles without consulting with us first or giving us a chance to improve the articles. Also, Professor Frink is definitely notable enough to have his own article. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "AfD is not the right place for this"? Geez, where else do we go if we want articles to be deleted? And "very rude" to not "consult first" with a group of individuals (not sure what "us" refers to) before nominating? Seriously? Since we're all down here, however, there's no stopping the discussion. They're all very wonderfully written articles, but the question concerns whether they're notable enough for their own individual pages. With [simpsons.wikia.com WikiSimpsons], there's no longer that feeling of a right of entitlement to everything Simpsons that once prevailed around here. Commentary on a DVD is not an "independent" source, and musings on IGN don't qualify either. I can see merit in the point that these should be nominated separately, with the losers being redirected to the list of recurring characters. However, Simpsons articles are gradually being deleted from here and good riddance. Mandsford 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator doesn't want the articles to be deleted. He wants them to be merged. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left, I notified the project earlier today, and also explained my rationale for using AFD instead of a merge discussion (namely, that AFDs get more community imput and take less time). A WikiProject on a subject does not get the final say-so on articles about a topic; the community does. Last I checked, merge discussions are discussed on the articles' talk pages; not on the DOH project. Purple backpack89 22:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of recurring characters in The Simpsons as per Slon2. That's what that article is about and that is what these characters are. Agnes Skinner even heads the list, so no shame being part of it! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professor Fink - the work done on the article is excellent and the references demonstrate notability in his own right. Merge the remaining as per my original contribution to the debate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frink and Dr. Nick are both notable enough to have an article. They are not just throwaway gag characters, both have played significant parts in certain episodes, and they are popular enough that there is enough information out there to warrant an article. Lionel Hutz should also be kept- that character had about the same number of appearances as Troy Mcclure, and that character is now a featured article. So, the information does exist. The rest I suppose should be merged. As for the number of Simpsons characters with articles, when you consider the sheer number of recurring characters who already don't have an article (100+), 30 or so with articles is not so bad. I can remember a year or two ago there were many more characters with articles, an we worked hard to trim that number to only the most important characters. Rhino131 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's face facts... The Simpsons, longest running comedy pretty much ever, is a part of American culture. Every main character, and most of the minor characters, such as Professor Frink, are worthy of inclusion. If you wanna get you backhair up, there are a crapload of pages on obscure Japanese porno movies that have escaped scrutiny. Let's give the people what they want and shut down the commercial slimers abusing Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Simpsons is a part of American culture doesn't mean that every character who appears in ten episodes deserves an article. Also, you Japanese porn argument is fallicious (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:PTEST) Purple backpack89 02:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Simpsons project can only make WP:GAs so fast. They've shown they can do it with virtually any aspect of the show, and they merge the ones they can't (as they slowly go, if you can consider 200+ over the last few years slow). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character) to List of recurring characters in the Simpsons and keep the rest. Radioactive Man is the star of a comic book and movie...on a TV series. Come on, now. (Also consider reading WP:IARBIAS.)

A few more comments I have to make, though:

Theleftorium, no one needs WP:DOH's permission to nominate a Simpsons-related article on here (or anyone else's permission for any article on here, for that matter) for AfD. The main reason is, well, no offense, but since you are a member of that WikiProject and an article from that subject is up for deletion, can we really expect you to be objective about the situation?

Carrite: Come on, you know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. Am I sensing a bit or WP:ILIKEIT?

Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfair. Theleftorium himself has nominated at least one Simpsons article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags. The nominator doesn't really want all this deleted, anyway. He thinks some of it can be merged. It wouldn't have hurt to at least try proposing some mergers at the project page before jumping to AFD. These articles don't violate WP:BLP or anything. The word isn't going to end if they're not taken down immediately. Zagalejo^^^ 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But anyway, I think I should point out that no one in this debate (myself included) seems to have made an effort to examine the sources that are potentially available. People are either assuming that sources are out there, or assuming that sources aren't out there. So, let's try to see what's actually available on Google. For starters, I found this at Google Books - an entire chapter about the depiction of lawyers on The Simpsons, including several pages analyzing Lionel Hutz! That would be a usable source, no? Zagalejo^^^ 08:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This also sounds like it could be a useful source in a couple of the articles that have been nominated. I've just read the abstract, though. Zagalejo^^^ 20:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert and Mandsford, I don't think you understood what I meant. I'm saying that if you're going to nominate six articles for deletion, at the same time, it's just common courtesy to let the WikiProject know beforehand so that they have enough time to improve the articles they think are notable. Personally, I think Rainier Wolfcastle should be merged. The rest could possibly be notable. I'm going to do my best to look for sources this week. And by the way, I don't have any conflict of interest at all. I have supported the merger of several character articles over the past two years. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone needs the permission of any WikiProject to perform any action on Wikipedia, including nominating an article for deletion. I agree that it's often the polite thing to do, but you need to understand the potential problems. Other WikiProjects I could name, which are not as scrupulous as the Simpsons mob, would not use a polite heads-up as an opportunity to address the problems. Instead, they'd just watchlist the articles in question, do nothing until they're nominated, and then descend on the discussion en masse howling "Keep! Keep! OMG Super Duper Mega Important!" It's a fine line between common courtesy and canvassing the fanboys. Reyk _YO! 10:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I don't care much for WikiProjects. I think it's perfectly sufficient to notify a project when their articles are up for deletion (which I did). Those articles have been tagged for the Simpsons WikiProject for a long time; if they wanted to improve them, they've had ample opportunity. Most of the articles in question have 5 references or less, and 2 reliable references or less. Purple backpack89 15:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have probably 10 really active members, and 825 articles, we can't get everything perfect at the same time. CTJF83 chat 17:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten? It's more like five. Purplebackpack89, your comment makes no sense. We have a total of 825 articles and 234 GAs (which have been written over a period of three years). How in the world do you expect us to improv all our articles at once? Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All GAs at once, no. All with enough references to pass NOTE in three years, yes. By the way, I would love to see you "improv" those articles Purple backpack89 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it all takes time, now that they have been brought to our attention, we will work on them, and I might be motivated enough to get them all to GA just to prove a point CTJF83 chat 19:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no need for you to be immature and mock someone for a spelling error. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke... Left, you're getting too uptight with regard to this AFD Purple backpack89 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frink et al, merge Radioactive Man and possibly Rainier Wolfcastle. Seems the most sensible course of action. Reyk _YO! 10:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Radioactive Man, Keep rest, Sources can easily be added to all these to improve them, if minor character Troy McClure can be an FA, then all these can easily be improved for stand alone articles. CTJF83 chat 17:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. We've considered merging Radioactive Man in the past, but he's been kept because there is a real Bongo comic devoted to the character, which is enough notability for a page. Of the six, I'd say Cletus is the likeliest candidate for merging. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Note to closer: Deletion/merge is clearly leading among non-involved (non WP:DOH) members. Keeping is only clearly leading among involved/WP:DOH members Purple backpack89 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy, Purple; that point has already been made a few times. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per Peregrine Fisher. I am NOT a Simpsons fan, but he's absolutely right: almost anything Simpsons-related can be sourced appropriately, and WP:DOH has an incredible track record in doing so. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as per Peregrine Fisher and Jclemens comments. d'oh! _talk 03:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep All I'm not much for the Simpsons (I pretty much stopped watching cartoons ca. 1979), but I have heard of all of these characters and these articles have very high traffic stats, and are (generally) well written.Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that most of the articles should be kept, but that isn't a very good keep rationale, IMO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever... Bill Whittaker (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now that I think about it, I agree with Erpert. There really is no reason to clutter up WP with all these cartoon characters; the only rationale for keeping was popularity, and that does not seem to be a good-enough reason. Delete them entirely. Bill Whittaker (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what I said; I said most of the articles should be kept. Only Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character) should be merged. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Professor Frink too? I've improved that article quite a bit and it clearly meets WP:NOTE. Theleftorium ^(talk) 07:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I keep saying "kept", not "deleted"! Are y'all paying attention? Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm talking to Bill, not you Erpert. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll shut up then, lol. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm back. What'd I miss? I originally supported keeping because, although I am not a fan, I have heard of them, and if a geezer like me has heard of them, then they are probably notable, even if they are just cartoons. Erpert pointed out that this is poor reasoning, and after considering the matter, I decided that he was right, and that popularity is not reason enough for notability. Ipso-facto I changed my vote. Now Erpert is bellyachin' about it. I remember why I usually avoid pop-culture articles. (FYI: My wife said that the haircut I gave my son makes him look like Cletus, which is how I got on this to begin with. Damn Norelco clippers.) Bill Whittaker (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I do not necessarily believe that all of these articles should be kept, but The Simpsons universe is so expansive that group AfDing them is not the answer. Professor Frink, by the contents of his article, is clearly more notable than Cletus. As for Lionel Hutz, he could have a similar level of quality to Troy McCluire, due to both being voiced by the same person, and as such, having their characters go through the same treatment. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cletus Spuckler. And the rest (except perhaps Radioactive Man), but especially Cletus. It makes sense to merge when an article meets this criteria from your deletion policy: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." That avoids chasing multiple links while researching. Conversely, too much merging makes the major article long and unwieldy, and forces the reader to wade through excessive material extraneous to whatever he or she seeks.

Cletus has been a recurring character since Season Five, and (as the article's final paragraph noted), "He is named the 7th (out of 25) of IGN's Top 25 Simpsons Peripheral Characters." The article section, Cletus Spuckler#Children, is an amusing commentary on celebrities who give their children unusual names, and is very likely to be expanded as the family grows every time we see them. The length of the article makes it likely to clutter up the List of recurring characters in The Simpsons article, which currently includes 67 characters and 169 footnotes.

I agree it could be referenced better, but it does not meet deletion criteria for "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources . . ." and "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". It may have errors, but I haven't found any, and the solution for that is editing. --Dogger55 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all coverage in books about the subject that is more than a mere listing is sufficient for notability., as in other subjects. Whether we might do better with combination articles is to some extent just a question of style, but at present I think the best protection against slow removal of content is to have separate articles. If some are not covered at all, they can be renominated separately. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Cirt. Jenks24 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frink, I think that lack of screen time would not matter if the majority of the article meets notability with external sources (there's a character page that only appeared in one TV episode, but is still good article (I think that this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is valid in that case). -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2010 (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.