Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Quagmire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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...giggity. Sr13 04:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Glenn Quagmire
Character from Family Guy with does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the show to which an encyclopedic article can be written from. The article is also a magnet of original research, unverifiable information, and fancruft. --Farix (Talk) 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Glenn Quagmire is an important character in Family Guy. There is the need to have such an article on WP as a reference for the show just as anime characters are on other pages. I will duely note that the article might become a source for Fancruft but if moderated well and kept an eye on, it will be a valueable contribution to WP. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Appears from independent sources to be an important character on a notable television show; although WP:FICT's vague as to whether a character like this could be considered, major or minor, I think there's enough depth to the character that merging into Family Guy would not be appropriate. Also, despite the fact that I loathe this show with the heat of a thousand suns, it seems to me that any character that has its own bobblehead doll is likely major enough to pass WP:FICT. --Charlene 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Wasn't he the focus of one episode, instead of the normal characters at one point? Whsitchy 15:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ; important character in a very popular cartoon, Family Guy - Jackm (Talk - Contributions)
- Keep major character in a nationally broadcast television program. Appears in every episode so far as I know. Your concern is a content dispute, not a concept one. Some kind of sources should be available, even if it's just the show itself. Or are you asserting he's not actually important?? FrozenPurpleCube 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Giggity Giggity Keep- The other members of his family certainly aren't notable enough for their own article, but he's all over the episode list. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. More deserving of his own article than Demodocus. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Merge All pages in Category:Family_Guy_characters are of similar notability, similar or worse quality. Merge with List of characters from Family Guy. / edgarde 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Very important character in a landmark opus of American mythology. Anton Mravcek 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Everyone keeps saying that the character is notable or are making WP:ILIKEIT comments. However, no one has addressed any of the issues brought up on the deletion rational, that of little to no independent sources, original research, and lack of verifiability. All of these are non-negotiable and trumps whatever notability this character may have. --Farix (Talk) 10:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment You are wrong. There have been no "I like it" votes from those voting keep, none, zero, zilch, nada, 〇. Your saying otherwise does not make it so. Michiganotaku 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are those three concerns addressed by WP:EPISODE#Content? Specifically: [a]n actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research. This is pretty verifiable without secondary sources. / edgarde 11:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- When the Gundam AfDs occurred late last year and early this year, that wasn't enough to keep them from being deleted. Secondary sources independent of the TV series where required and the closing admins cited as such when they deleted the articles despite overwhelming keep or merge comments. --Farix (Talk) 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- The section I quoted was added a couple months ago,[1] and as an established guideline it may override the Gundam precendent (which I can't quickly find), altho the article itself applies to episodes more than characters. In the wrangling WP:EPISODE has seen since, this hasn't been challenged. I'm not trying to fight the AfD, but I think this is what you need to surmount to get a deletion on the three issues you list. WP:ILIKEIT's notwithstanding. / edgarde 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is only one "ilikeit" vote here ("idontlikeit" to be precise, but you get my point). Most of the other keep votes go to notability, not whether the person making the comment likes or dislikes the character. Anton Mravcek 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- The section I quoted was added a couple months ago,[1] and as an established guideline it may override the Gundam precendent (which I can't quickly find), altho the article itself applies to episodes more than characters. In the wrangling WP:EPISODE has seen since, this hasn't been challenged. I'm not trying to fight the AfD, but I think this is what you need to surmount to get a deletion on the three issues you list. WP:ILIKEIT's notwithstanding. / edgarde 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- When the Gundam AfDs occurred late last year and early this year, that wasn't enough to keep them from being deleted. Secondary sources independent of the TV series where required and the closing admins cited as such when they deleted the articles despite overwhelming keep or merge comments. --Farix (Talk) 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete He's disgusting. Yuck. Augurr 21:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There are citations of secondary sources independent of producers which are relevant to this topic, despite what some may huff and puff. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Article needs improvement but clearly can be improved. We can't delete every article that needs to be improved. The character is sufficiently notable. Doczilla 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, he's notable, but more importantly here, there are secondary sources to back up everything that's said in the article. Anton Mravcek 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He has more appearance than Montgomery Burns in the Simpsons. In case you didn't know, Burns is in most episodes of The Simpsons. TheBlazikenMaster 23:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Not relevant here, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The merits of a Montgomery Burns article notwithstanding.
- Keep. We could put a citation next to every single statement in this article if we wanted to, many of them from secondary sources. ShutterBugTrekker 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per all the others who point out how many secondary sources are available. Besides, the article on George W. Bush could be a much bigger magnet of fancruft yet no one suggests it should be deleted. Michiganotaku 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Believe me, you have no idea. There has been a lot of it, but none have been done proberly. Just wanted to point that out. TheBlazikenMaster 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Needs major cleanup and real-world-information, but I suspect it can be found. If not, redirect at a later time to a list of characters. -- Ned Scott 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
