Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy/Closed deletion debates

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 redirect all.

Mickey McFinnigan redirected to "Peter's Two Dads" - character only appeared there, no real content in character article not in episode article.

Bertram (Family Guy) redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have added references there to the two episodes in which he appeared, no real content in character article not in those episode articles.

Thelma Griffin redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have merged in a small amount of descriptive content.

--Stormie (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey McFinnigan

Mickey McFinnigan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Three NN characters with no real-world significance and have only been in a few episodes and can easily covered at the List of characters from Family Guy. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also NN characters:

Bertram (Family Guy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thelma Griffin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• No real-world significance agreed. Should this be a merge discussion? The norm with articles like this is to redirect to appropriate pages. I'd say:
  • Redirect Thelma Griffin to List of characters from Family Guy.
  • Redirect Mickey McFinnigan to Peter's Two Dads
  • Delete Bertram (Family Guy) as readers are unlikely to include " (Family Guy)" in their search strings. Links to the deleted article should be redirected to List of characters from Family Guy#Bertram. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Readers are not unlikely to suffix their searches with (Family Guy), considering other articles end with it. Should be redirected as a plausible search term. –Pomte 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Television-related deletions and Fictional characters-related deletions. / —edg ☺ ☭ 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful, and then Redirect. All are minor fictional characters with no wider significance outside of the Family Guy universe. Lankiveil (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
• Agree with nom -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect all as above. No basis established for requiring individual articles about these characters. Eusebeus (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to List of characters from Family Guy. Redirect where makes sense. Minor character in major series. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of characters from Family Guy nn characters. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to whatever target is deemed most appropriate for each article. No justification for separate articles for any of these minor characters. Otto4711 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all. No notability via substantial coverage in secondary sources per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (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.

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 merge and redirect to List of characters from Family Guy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Griffin

This article is based on a fictional character, written in-universe style, with no real world significance or notability, it is also unreferenced and the character has only appeared in a few episodes. Other articles on characters of this genre on Family Guy have been deleted and merged into one article, so I am suggesting that the same thing should happen to this one. Blueanode (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey McFinnigan which is an AFD revolving around other family guy characters.
• Delete Although I have seen at least 2 of those episodes that he is in, he is such a minor character that he really doesn't need his own article. If anything, merge all of the minor characters to one article. Tavix (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to a list of Family Guy characters. Which is what should happen with probably 90% or more of the articles on fictional characters on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge (which automatically includes a redirect) to List of characters from Family Guy per the guidelines of WP:FICT. I'm not seeing any easy indication that he's independently notable, though if they appear before the end of the AfD, then obviously this should be kept. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Keeper | 76 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to the list. I doubt this character merits a stand-alone article as he has no seperate notability from the Family Guy, which is obviously very notable. He's one of the more minor characters, unlike, say, Glenn Quagmire who appears in almost every episode.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Whether he is one or the major or minor characters seems like a judgment call, and would be an editing decision. No need to discuss it here. DGG (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this well-presented article on a memorable recurring character from a notable show. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note- please ignore this editor, the character doesn't even appear anymore and the editor in question appears to be following around voting keep on every AFD I start just because they do not agree with my deletionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueanode (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

comment. Don't take it personally. This editor says keep on every article, not just your nominations. Keeper | 76

I am taking this very personally, this editor is making a game out of the AFD process. Blueanode (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't, because nothing here (in Wikipedia) is personal. Don't get stressed about one "Vote". We are building an encyclopedia. If the "pumpkin" votes keep for everything, so be it. It's not personal, and xe is entitled to say whatever xe wants. Most admins will take xer vote in stride. Keeper | 76 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a lot of plot with no reliable, secondary sources evidencing notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. It is clear that with no real world significance asserted or adduced, this does not merit an individual article. Keep votes are an assemblage of ATAs that do not provide any foundation whatsoever for retention of this kind of material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge same as above. Toolazy21 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2008 (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.

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—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stewie Kills Lois

Nominated for deletion in a confusing massive selection (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy, season 6 episodes) by User:Sceptre. Since this one is different from the others, a separate discussion is necessary. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep futoncritic.com and tv.com agree both on title and expected airdate of this future episode. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep confirmed by studio Will ^(talk) 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I just restored some information that was deleted earlier this month without explanation by an anon editor, less than one day prior to the AfD nom. There are several sources now. / edg ☺ ★ 22:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Plentifully verified by Kwyjibo, Will, edg. Slappywag42 23:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edgarde. TheBlazikenMaster 12:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Frankly I don't think we should be a directory of every episode of television, ever, but this 100th episode does appear to be both notable and verifiable. Burntsauce 17:15, 15 October 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.

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 delete. east.718 at 06:55, December 20, 2007

[edit] Ernie (Family Guy)

Ernie (Family Guy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable character. Article details every occurrence of this running gag on Family Guy, padding somewhat with original research, no out-of-universe content. An article on this topic was deleted in 2007-04-17T18:46:45 (after being redirected) when character was named "Giant Chicken". / edg ☺ ☭ 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, merge any sourced content to List of characters from Family Guy. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • All this content is sourced to the show; since WP:NOT#PLOT, there is at this time nothing to merge. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That's why I said deIete. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • A show is a valid primary source for its own characters and plot. (It isn't, of course, a valid secondary source for showing notability.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I know, I know. I basically brought this up so that "it's too long to merge so KEEP" wouldn't rear its ugly head. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a great running gag, but doesn't need it's own article. This is just one of many such gags/characters in the show. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, content added that might be useful in the future. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — This article is useful for understanding the gag. Providing useful information would seem to be the purpose of encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfirey (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Prove it then. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:USEFUL is not a reason to retain an article on a non-notable subject. The argument you give is that someone may need this information to explain the joke; an encyclopedia does not contain articles explaining each joke made in any comedy. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I thought we already got rid of this article long ago. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Plus, recreated deleted material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. Unreferenced discussion. `'Míkka>t 01:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of characters from Family Guy. After trimming down the plot summary, the content seems equivalent to that in the list entry. Deletion policy says to merge and redirect, not delete, redundant content. DHowell (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This nomination reeks of WP:PROBLEM. Please be wary of the nominator's reasons for deleting this page.

1. the Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson Family Guy characters both have 5 appearances on Family Guy, just one more than Ernie who has 4. When Ernie has his magical 5th appearance on Family Guy, will the nominator suddenly allow others to recreate this article, and will editors then have to rewrite this article? Who decided on this arbitrary number?
2. Anthony.bradbury deleted the page because it was a #REDIRECT [[ ]]. If you look at this Anthony's contributions, he has deleted thousands of these redirects. He probably never even look at the history of the page.
3. this article has never been up for AfD before,
4. To say this article contains WP:OR is laughable, there is no research on this page, and this page is exactly the same as 8 other reoccurring characters Family Guy pages, which risk being deleted also if this page is deleted for the same reason.
5. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.
6. WP:ITSNOTABLE The Non-notable character argument is also ludicrous, based on Wikipedia:Television episodes
7. The "no out-of-universe" argument is also absurd, based on Wikipedia:Television episodes
8. Other editors have began to add references cites to this page, which did not exist when the article was nominated for deletion. The page now has more sources than many other reoccurring Family Guy character pages, it has the only cited book reference I have seen in the reoccurring characters. If this page is successfully deleted, all of those pages are at risk of being deleted too for the same reason.

For a detailed explanation of each point see the talk page.

Based on the above information, I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw this nomination. Odessaukrain (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Non-notable fictional chicken. --Jack Merridew 13:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How is Ernie with 4 appearances, different from Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson, both Family Guy characters who have had 5 appearances? Odessaukrain (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The character does not have any real world coverage, so it does not require an article. TTN (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The characters, Jonathan Weed, Joe Swanson, Mort Goldman, Tom Tucker, Neil Goldman, Kevin Swanson, Herbert, and Jonathan Weed also have no real world coverage, yet they are Family Guy pages. Real world coverage is preferable, but not required. Wikipedia:Television episodes states: While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. All 8 of the existing Family Guy wikipages I list above fall into this category. Odessaukrain (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment — see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Basically, you're inviting those articles to be looked at and, if warranted, nominated, too. --Jack Merridew 13:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not calling the other articles "crap" (nice manipulation of the actual link: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), I am not arguing whether this page should exist simply because other pages exists.

I am trying to show that this page meets or exceeds existing television character minimum guidelines to be an article on Wikipedia. I mention Wikipedia:Television episodes because of the difficulty of finding external references and citations on this topic, as Wikipedia:Television episodes acknowledges.

This comparison of wikiguidlines is what your extremely derogatory quote of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ignores.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not stop people from comparing the minimal wiki-standard for articles. After all, isn't that what an AfD is? It is a determination of whether the article meets minimal Wikipedia guidelines. This article does.

I would really appreciate a straight answer: Do you think Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson, standard Television character wikipages should be deleted and why? Odessaukrain (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that was the shortcut and only played with it when it came up red in the preview window. I have not looked at those two and may, or may not, next. --Jack Merridew 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at 'em and, in their present form they do not establish their notability or cite any third party sources, so they either need work on this score or they're in trouble (the link on the Bonnie page was lame, imho). --Jack Merridew 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ernie is nothing but a gag character. Show me a character that's just a gag character that has its own article, and then I agree with you not otherwise. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

me thinks your reply is not to me but to Odessaukrain... --Jack Merridew 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Merridew, way to skillfully avoid the question, sigh, is it because you know this question is a lose- lose?

Lets make it easy.

1. If you acknowledge that those two articles are up to minimum wikipedia standards, then you would reluctantly have to admit that this page is up to minimum wikistandards, as I explained in my reasons to keep above.
2. If you say those articles should be deleted, my question would be why? What is the minimum wikipedia standard for television character pages? You would answer, citing something I hope, then I would show that this is article meets those standards.

Both know that this page meets or exceeds the minimal wiki-standard for television character articles. The problem for me is that there is no way for you to save face at this point. Odessaukrain (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes; Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson are not notable, and do not for any other reason deserve their own pages on Wikipedia. This "mini-standard" does not exist. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a commonly used shortcut for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[Deleted comment was here]

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Television episodes that justifies retention of Ernie (Family Guy). List of one-time characters from The Simpsons is perennially (and reasonably) nominated for deletion, and usually kept out of caution that something in it might be worth keeping – and I don't need to tell "hundreds of" editors anything. Also, while I appreciate that removing the expletive from your previous conversation was well-intended, WP:TPG recommends you not edit previously posted comments that others may be replying to (or in the process of replying to). / edg ☺ ☭ 14:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems the article has gone through a lot of changes since it was first nominated. I don't know if that's enough to keep, but it should definately be taken into consideration. Personally, I'd prefer to see improvable articles kept so they can continue to be worked on and fall in line with Wikipedia policy. - Superlex (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Much effort has gone into this. Sourcing to episodes is okay for WP:VERIFIABILITY, but does not help establish WP:NOTABILITY, which is the main issue in this Afd. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I never said it established notability. I just pointed it out so we could take that into consideration. The List of characters from Family Guy seems to already have a good paragraph on Ernie, so maybe this would be better as a merge/redirect? - Superlex (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Good point. I just popped the voice actor and all the citations into List of characters from Family Guy, which is chronically undersourced. Merge accomplished. Thanks for bringing this up. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no real-world significance. And thanks to Odessaukrain for assistance in pointing out the other pages that need to be cleaned up or deleted as well. Eusebeus (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think my message to User_talk:Edgarde#Changed vote to merge is meant for you too Eusebeus. Odessaukrain (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• The character has no real-world notability. So delete it. I don't see a need to redirect, as no one will search for the character with the (Family Guy) appendage. It is already on the Ernie disambig page, so nothing to do after deletion. I (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:FICT and already covered well enough by List of characters from Family Guy. Collectonian (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, that Simpsons page is actually good example. Hmm, maybe, just maybe, this article can stay. I still don't know whether or not the chicken is notable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article is useful for understanding very popular TV show. I can certainly see people coming here trying to understand the running gag. Hobit (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't here to explain every running gag on Family Guy. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nor is Wikipedia here to document every president of Harvard. I strongly suspect there are more people who would view a running gag on Family Guy as more notable than the most obscure president of the Harvard. Hobit (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia is documenting every president of Harvard, then it would be because each individual is notable in their own right, or that there are articles that have yet to be deleted/merged. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per notability, verifiability, and this brilliantly worded argument. Well-done to the editors of the article! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, As notable as Barney Gumble, and this article has pretty much the same kind of sources. This character is verifiable per the book cited in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you compare the two? Barney has been in existance for twenty years, been in 100+ episodes and has been analyzed in several independant books. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I was comparing the references in the two articles. --Pixelface (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No, you wrote "As notable as Barney Gumble". Comparing the two is like comparing Meg Griffin and Archie Bunker or Ralph Kramden (who, by the way, doesn't have his own page) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, as notable as Barney Gumble judging from the references in the two articles. --Pixelface (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment None of those sources are independent of the show. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well it does look like the writer of the episode guide, Steve Callaghan, is a writer for Family Guy. How about the BBC?[1] TV Guide?[2] Action figure?[3] IGN?[4] UGO interview with Seth Macfarlane?[5] Wizard! magazine[6] Yale Daily News?[7] New York Post?[8] University Wire?[9] Daily Targum?[10] Apparently the chicken is the final boss in the Family Guy Video Game!. News 8 Austin?[11] I think the character is notable, but if the article is deleted, there is an article on Wikia about the character[12], and it is on the List of characters from Family Guy. --Pixelface (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree that this character should be on List of characters from Family Guy. Feel free to add those citations to his section. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no secondary sources to add real world context. Fails WP:Plot and I doubt there are any sources to add real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridernyc (talk · contribs) is correct - Unless, that is, sources can be provided to give some context and analysis to this article from secondary sources - otherwise it's just a descriptive recounting about the character, with no notability established or significance. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
• Comment. I've added some reception information and such to the article, fully backed by sources. It's mostly just reworded and recycled from the "Blind Ambition" article though. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent effort to improve the article! Bravo!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in its rewritten form It's not much but it is enough to avoid deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:44, 20 December 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.

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 redirected to Mother Tucker. DS (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thaddeus Griffin

He appeared in one episode, that's it. And unlike Peter's biological father, this article is full of unwanted lists that aren't encyclopedic. The article for Peter's real father is way more encyclopedic than Thaddeus' article. It has been confirmed in the DVD Commentary of Peter's Two Dads that Peter's father will appear again, but I see no sources here. The only sources there are there are to another Wiki, that doesn't require as many sources as Wikipedia, therefor can't be trusted. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per above, also another reason is that it could have been a random guy that's a master of disguise that acted like Peter's clone. There is no proof that they're relatives. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, basically a one-episode gag character who shows up to twirl his mustache. Rest of article is original research and excessive plot detail. There is a discussion on how to treat this character on Talk:Peter Griffin — while there is no consensus on where to file him, an article is obviously not merited. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everything already said above. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Character who appeared in one episode for 10 seconds. Besides that, nearly all of the article is original research. Saget53 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Mother Tucker, the one episode in which the character appeared. DHowell (talk) 01:07, 15 December 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.

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 redirect to where it was cut out from. `'Míkka>t 07:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce the Performance Artist

Bruce the Performance Artist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Family Guy character. Completely unsourced, padded with speculation and excessive plot summary. / edg ☺ ☭

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of characters from Family Guy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Does Merge make sense here? Who is going to search on this term? The capitalization is even wrong. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't see why one won't search by this term. Moreover, the info can still be there even if one won't search by that term. In any case, there is no capitalization problem. It's something that can be fixed quickly and easily. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Already covered in List of characters from Family Guy. Article created just yesterday, it looks like. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 13 December 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.

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 Delete per consensus. Reasons given for retention appear to fail either WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:ILIKEIT parameters. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The FCC Song

The FCC Song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No real life information, and I doubt one can be added. (just in case I'm watching the page.) All the article states is why one song was censored. This is a general encyclopedia, we don't need big details of one small song, unless it is very important. Censored in one episode isn't good enough. TheBlazikenMaster 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is an example of the sort of information that tends to populate articles on Family Guy articles, especially episode articles. The intention here is to detail and explain everything that happens on-screen in a show that makes constant quick references, and the standard defense is that these explanations are valuable. I don't agree that these things belong on Wikipedia, but that is the defense for this article in its current form. (Another popular defense is the article will get better and the topic will become notable in the future, but I won't go there.) / edg ☺ ☭ 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As a contributor to Family Guy articles myself, this serves no meaningful purpose on Wikipedia, it should just be mentioned in the article about the episode, it doesn't need its own article... Qst (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• I, the Supreme Potentate, say: KEEP!. First I would ask: what harm is the article doing you by existing? Why do you care? Will you lose sleep over this article's existence? Is it infringing on your personal freedoms? Secondly: this most certainly is NOT an "in-universe" thing. This is about the COMPLETE AND TOTAL OPPOSITE -- this article is about something a real show did in real life, which dealt with real political and social issues, and had real consequences in the real legal system and real government. It was Emmy-worthy none-the-less. It deserves its own page. Piercetheorganist 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • We care because Wikipedia requires sources. If you are right, then for good time sakes proof it by sourcing. And don't use personal attacks, (like you did in the edit summary) they are harmful for offended editors, Wikipedia is supposed to be a helpful place. TheBlazikenMaster 23:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No article causes any harm. That's not why they get deleted. This is entirely original reserch and makes no point at all. It's just things that you'd automatically know by seeing the clip, needlessly separated from the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.194.123 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I wasn't meaning the article was harmful, I meant this edit summary. TheBlazikenMaster 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. You've got to be kidding. The actual individual episode of this show that this song is in is already in the WP. Let's create an article for each stanza of the song! --- tqbf 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, whilst I am a huge Family Guy fan, this belongs on the PTV episode page, not in it's own article, and it should be cut down somewhat. --UnleashTheWolves 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect back into the article about the Family Guy episode that this came from. I'm sure someone will write, "But the PTV article is too big already!" so I will add "Tough shit, get lost." Mandsford 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as ridiculously non-notable fancruft. Terraxos 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep. This song is from an Emmy Award winning TV show. Kingturtle 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  By the way, there are 1000s of articles about particular songs. There is nothing wrong with such articles. Give this article a chance to grow. Kingturtle 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This reason is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TheBlazikenMaster 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately that's the problem, it can't grow. This was only used in ONE episode, the show might be notable but the song isn't. Please find reliable sources for the article, if you care about it so much. It doesn't have any, and probably never will. TheBlazikenMaster 17:10, 15 November 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.

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 delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The arguments for deletion are heavily based in policy. The keep arguments are much weaker, and the fact that they will air defeat WP:CRYSTAL When the episodes air, feel free to recreate it, and/or create redirects right now. --Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McStroke

McStroke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources for anything on these pages. At all. Will ^(talk) 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also nominated

• Padre de Familia (episode)
• Lois Kills Stewie
• McStroke
• Peter's Daughter
• Road to Germany
• Play It Again, Brian
• Love Blactually
• The Former Life of Brian
• Three Kings (Family Guy)
• Back to the Woods (Family Guy)
• The Man With Two Brians
• I Dream of Jesus
• Baby Not On Board
• Long John Peter
• Tales of a Third Grade Nothing
• Ocean's Three and a Half
• The Juice Is Loose!
• Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin
• Episode 420
• Not All Dogs Go To Heaven
• Family Gay

Do not delete. These pages are relatively useless at the moment, but will definitely be filled out once the episodes air. Deleting them now would be pointless, because they would just have to be reinstated when the episodes air, which is only several weeks away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.203.169 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. "These pages are relatively useless at the moment" - yes, which is why they're up for AFD.
2. "But will definitely be filled out once the episodes air" - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL
3. "Deleting them now would be pointless" - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL
4. "Because they would just have to be reinstated when the episodes air" - WP:EPISODE, and the fact these titles are confirmed
5. "Which is only several weeks away" - Season 7 will start in, no exaggeration, 12 months time. A lot more than several weeks, yes?

Will ^(talk) 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Are there any reliable sources for these other than the copyright database (which doesn't appear to backup the claim that these are season six episodes)? If not these should be redirected to the LOE, until such a time a reliable source becomes available to prove the existence of this episode. Matthew 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to List of Family Guy episodes. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They were all given to us by a Greg Colton, one of the main directors for family guy. Same was done with season 5 and all those titles were correct as well if you went back and checked. In that case they were available about a year in advance as well Grande13 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

you can't get anymore direct than a firsthand source... Grande13 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you make that source public? And don't remove AFD tags. Will ^(talk) 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge Not notable enough and with no sources. WP:EPISODE. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect the following to the LOE: Stewie Kills Lois, Lois Kills Stewie,McStroke, and Padre de Familia, until a synopsis is provided. All of these are listed in IMDb with release dates. Keep Peter's Daughter as that has a synopsis and air date. Delete the rest until they can be verified.--Sethacus 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect but don't delete Those of you that don't know what delete and redirect means I will tell you. It means that the history will be lost, and then re-created for redirection. I don't want that to happen, once the sources are available we should keep this. TheBlazikenMaster 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Stewie Kills Lois as it has been announced [13]. No opinion on the others. DCEdwards1966 14:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the episodes are expected, and can generally? be seen listed on TVGuide.com. Also, we have people from the studio as well as someone? having correspondence with the Family Guy director. Miranda 04:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

However, redirect the articles which haven't been aired yet to the list of episodes, but do not delete. Miranda 04:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• TV Guide doesn't have any epiosdes listed beyond the just aired "Believe it or Not, Joe's Walking on Air". Will ^(talk) 10:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete until they actually have enough information to warrant a separate page. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

ultra-strong mega-keep deleting wud be pointless, the episodes will air soon & these pages show a bit of good info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.235.20 (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Until they do it's best to let them be redirects. TheBlazikenMaster 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They are all confirmed titles, although im ok with having redirects for the future episodes that currently have nothing really notable to add to the page besides production code and title. I've done a test redirect of the episode Not All Dogs Go To Heaven, so im guessing this is how we should do the other ones that have no info. Although a few do have info such as Road to Germany, which has a plot, guest stars, director, and parts of the script from a live table read. A few others exist as well, although most near the end have nothing notable to add Grande13 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, source? Will ^(talk) 07:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Grande13, I did never say they aren't, but until there is something else (other than the titles) confirmed, they should just redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just redirect the articles and create them again once they air. No one knows what going to happen so there's no need for speculative articles about possible episodes. Especially with no source. WP:V is policy too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose this mass deletion nomination on principle alone. It is horribly confusing to lump future episodes for which there is evidence with those for which there is none. I am separating out the one for "Stewie Kills Lois" because it is the most verifiable and the one with the closest airdate. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewie Kills Lois; those of you with an opinion on this one specifically please make your voice heard there. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Stewie Kills Lois now has several sources. These are just restored, having been deleted a week ago by an IP vandal, hours before this AfD nom. Details here. / edg ☺ ★ 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Stewie Kills Lois removed from nomination due to sources. Will ^(talk) 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The episodes that have nothing but the title and production episode should be redirected to the main episode list page, while those with more notable information available should be left and expanded on. Although there are only a handful of those that actually have notable info available, so not all should be redirected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande13 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - They will all just be recreated anyway. --Thankyoubaby 23:21, 14 October 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.

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 Delete. AfD arguments need to be based on policy. Those for delete are, pointing to lack of verifiable sources to justify the article. Those for keep are asserting there is notability but not proving it. Tyrenius 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy

Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article completely lacks context and fails to show how the phrases have become culturally significant (internet entertainment tabloids and ringtone charts don't help here.) This sort of article can be done properly (see Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons), but Family Guy has not had the same level of widespread cultural impact as The Simpsons has. Without any evidence of widespread cultural significance of Family Guy phrases, this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Richmeister_talk 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Family Guy. "Culturally significant" is a vague enough term at best, although among certain groups Family Guy is a very significant show. Not enough for an individual article, but worthy of a mention within the main article. Tx17777 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Merge would be a good idea if you were suggesting to merge into a small article. If you want to argue the term "culturally significant," there are at least a couple other articles you might want to suggest renaming. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is small. The two items worth keeping would fit nicely into a Catchphrases section in Family Guy article. The rest ("whose leg ...") are better suited to FG character pages. / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Update. I think everything worth keeping is merged here and here. / edg ☺ ★ 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This page just wanders, and I doubt that there is really anything superiorly "culturally significant" for this to have its own article. Dannycali 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All cited and verifiable, just as much as Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Anyway, how many catch phrases from Family Guy made it into the Oxford English Dictionary? In round numbers...... :) Dbromage [Talk] 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Tx17777. Dbromage [Talk] 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Tx17777. While the show has commonly identifiable catchphrases (as with many modern comedies), "culturally significant" is overstating it. Re-create if Giggity-giggity-goo starts being used by people not referring to Family Guy. / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dannycali and Corpx. Merge completed. [14] [15] If someone feels this article must be preserved, the Family Guy wikia might be a good place for it. Wikipedia is not. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is also transwiki'ed (partially — no deletion or logging on the Wikipedia side). / edg ☺ ★ 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • What a great job was done of that. Ugh. ShutterBugTrekker 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I'm not assuming good faith, but the parent comment reads like a grievance. If so, can objections be specified? If not, I apologize for accusing ShutterBugTrekker. / edg ☺ ★ 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as being patently trivial. The Simpsons this ain't. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (See, both sides can play that annoying game). Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Calling something trivial is not "I don't like it." I in fact much prefer Family Guy to the Simpsons, but I have no trouble admitting that none of the content from this article even comes close to the notability of the similar Simpsons article. Family Guy, even if I prefer its comedy, is not the cultural institution that is the Simpsons. Notability is not inherited, and simply because the show is notable does not entail that every aspect of it merits an article. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of independent sources saying why these are notable Corpx 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete The one for the Simpsons is a special case, & considerably more notable than almost any other such list.DGG (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While Family Guy doesn't have the longevity of The Simpsons, its catchphrases and neologisms are already making an indelible impact on American pop culture. The word "giggity," to take edg's example, is used by male teenagers and 20-somethings in response to the sudden appearance of a woman they consider attractive and in their own age group (while an attractive older woman might get American Pie''s "MILF"). There already are verifiable sources and the academic journals should catch up soon. Donnabella 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:CRYSTAL
2. If someone walks into a bar and people shout "Norm!", that doesn't mean the show Cheers merits a separate "Culturally significant words and phrases..." article. If verifiable sources and academic journals "catch up" with giggity, they should be footnoted in the Neologisms section in Family Guy.
3. I don't think it's helpful to treat this article as a referendum on the validity and importance of Family Guy as compared to The Simpsons. The Simpsons "words and phrases" article clearly stands on its own; this article does not, and one can reasonably assume that it cannot be brought to encyclopedic quality at this time. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I can see where this article can go. Family Guy neologism are very culturally popular, and significant, and their use has been imitated by many Americans, and is the topic of many different websites found throughout the web. Although, the content of this article may not warrant an article of its own, and may be properly merged into the main article. I believe that the contents of this article deserves to mentioned and noted. RiseRobotRise 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As RiseRobotRise points out, simple Web searches show the popular usage of these words and phrases adapted to the double purpose of conveying the meaning intended for them in the show as well as simultaneously paying homage to the show. Anton Mravcek 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Many of the words introduced or popularized by Family Guy have already entered (past tense) into pop culture and slang in a powerful way, and are used to carry meaning besides expression of fandom. I don't care if the eggheads catch up, so don't bug me with that wp:crystal crap. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of crap, are you saying this article is being held to too high a standard by "eggheads", and we should keep it on the basis of original research? And is that an exception we should apply to all articles, or just this one? (Or just any articles liked by Family Guy fans?) / edg ☺ ★ 23:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletionists have a million tricks up their sleeves. One of them has been to turn the phrase "original research" into something dirty and tawdry.

Anyone can type up famous words and phrases from Family Guy in a search engine box and get hundreds if not thousands of results. That's not original research. To hook someone up to an MRI and measure their physiological responses as they use these words, now that would be original research. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Others have already explained the tremendous influence of this show on American slang. Just because the article hasn't been brought up to "encyclopedic quality" (by whose standards, I don't know) under the duress of threatened deletion, doesn't mean that it can't be under any other circumstance. Michiganotaku 20:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Both notable and easily verifiable. Carla Bondicteuresse 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator's complaint that the article lacks context is something that can be fixed. But the nominator is wrong about the cultural impact of the show. For a show that hasn't been on as long as The Simpsons, Family Guy has had great cultural impact. Its neologisms which have entered the popular vernacular are already widely used all over the Internet and can be verified with a search engine. We don't demand scholarly journal articles to verify, for example, the sales figures of the latest version of Microsoft Word. ShutterBugTrekker 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

CommentNo, because there are other reliable sources for that information. We don't accept the results for a Google search for "I just bought a copy of Microsoft Word". --Richmeister_talk 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Among the many uses of "giggity" by 20-somethings, here's a very small sampling: a 23-year-old female from Florida has "Giggity giggity. Giggity goo." as her username on myspace (her myspace URL is "quiet_gray"). Page 7 of Technique (the student newspaper of Georgia Tech) for November 17, 2006, used "giggity giggity goo" to refer to Lindsay Lohan. The point is: "giggity" and some of the others are easily verified as notable. It might fall short of a silver platter, but not even a golden platter will satisfy Family Guy-haters. CompositeFan 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Extremely notable and easily verified. Plinth molecular gathered 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I seem to see a lot of these Keep votes seem to be from Family Guy fans that want to hold on to anything related about the show. The arguments for the notability of a few "culturally significant terms" is pretty shoddy. This article is not necessary, and the Quagmire article already has a lot of it already. And as a 20-something male with a healthy social life, I have never heard these terms used in real life. Dannycali 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a disgusting show. Having said that, lots of people our age use words from it. I don't know who Dannycali hangs out with. Augurr 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep This article should be kept but merged into Family Guy. Yoda317 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This information is already merged into Family Guy. As for this article, do we Keep or Delete?/ edg ☺ ★ 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The merge into the main article is much better, although I don't think saying that a nn website is a good example of showing notability (in "sideboob"), that's almost spammy. I think a redirect seems alright for now. The sources on the page only show that the words were used on the show, not how they are "culturally significant". Dannycali 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• keep article needs improvment but lets delete it before they got any chance to improve it! does taht make sense? one scohlarly source is due for december or january (depending on reveiw process), an informal source is due out later this monht but their already are plenty of informal sources on the web. even if "sideboob" was not coined by FG, FG inspired the website. its easy to turn up myspace users chusing FG words an prhases for there usernames and we even have one wikipedia user doing that Numerao 13:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you link or otherwise detail the "scholarly source" to which you refer? Cos right now we have giggity-squat plus vague promises. / edg ☺ ★ 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Your use of "giggity" is very interesting, and helps prove the point that this word has so permeated the culture it's already experiencing semantic drift.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2007
      • It does? Are you certain about this? Have you not considered the possibility that I may be simply referencing a term which might have come up earlier in this conversation? Are you going to include in your article a case study of the guy on Wikipedia who uses giggity in everyday vernacular based on my above comment? / edg ☺ ★ 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I wrote an article for Bob's Poetry Magazine on this topic, for the September issue, but it hasn't come out. I sent Bob the proof back just like he asked. I asked Bob and he said that it's someone else's article in the issue that's holding up release. So if you want to put pressure on him about this, the URL is bobspoetry.com. Michael Kr 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) p. s. I don't know what sources Numerao is talking about, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone's beaten me to the punch on this topic (like my idea for a book of scholarly essays about The L Word).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2007
  • This article was nominated for deletion 7 days ago. No improvements have occurred in this time, despite several assurances that this article will get much better as long as it is Kept. This article is 8 months old, so it has had time to mature. There have been hardly any edits in the past two months. It got this far, and stopped. I don't see the initiative to improve it, only to Keep it. / edg ☺ ★ 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe they refuse to continue playing deletionists' games. You improve one thing, thinking, maybe that'll satisfy them. But no, the deletionists have a Halliburtonian relentlessness about them. Fix one thing and they find another to complain about them. Maybe the only way to satisfy a deletionist is do bend to their will unquestioningly the first time around. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Why on earth would anyone resist making improvements to an article just because the suggested improvements came from an AFD discussion? To me that seems almost like it would border on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... --Miskwito 22:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The deletionist's tactic is to overwhelm by always being ready with another criticism at the point that the enemy thinks this might actually do the trick, but no, they're ready with something else. Eventually this wears down the enemy to the point they just give up. Cromulent Kwyjibo 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
          • No, you're just using a strawman argument here. For this article, the only requests for improvement I see are things along the line of "find references", which is definitely something any article should have. If you're trying to argue that people requesting reliable references/citations for an article is a "deletionist tactic", then you might want to read up on Wikipedia policy some more. But what it looks more like you're doing is making up arguments on the part of the people you disagree with, then mocking those made-up arguments, instead of actually working to fix the article into something salvageable. --Miskwito 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This article was created the very day List of neologisms on Family Guy was deleted. While I can't read the deleted article, the initial version of this article resembles the work of several editors. Interestingly, a start-to-current diff shows no real improvement since the edit creating this article in March. / edg ☺ ★ 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Had I known that this article was deleted previously, I think it should be speedied. It's the same article under a different name. I don't think things have changed much in the last few months to warrant this article to exsist. I would like to request a speedy delete based on reposted info. Dannycali 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You could ask, but it's a bit late for a speedy and my guess is they will leave it to the AfD. It would have been nice of voters here who participated in the previous discussion to have mentioned this, but none did. It would have been nice. / edg ☺ ★ 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you poor thing, you deserve our sympathy! Gimme a break. This is another tactic.

It's not the same article. The one that was deleted focused only on word neologisms created by the show's writers. This one takes a broader, much more easily verifiable view. ShutterBugTrekker 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —edg ☺ ★ 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. —edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant points to Family Guy main article and Quagmire article. There's just not enough here to justify a separate article. Squidfryerchef 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The merge is performed here. We're down to Keep, Delete and Vilify the "deletionists". Choose wisely. / edg ☺ ★ 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete then. Squidfryerchef 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notable show, article asserts notability, or continue the efforts to merge and redirect without deleting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The merge is performed here. All that remains is should we Keep or Delete this article. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Has already been merged, and I can't see any indication of much useful stuff here that's worth keeping. Certainly I don't see the need for a separate article. There are references cited in the article, but only one in-line citation, so it's essentially unsourced, because it's not clear which information has sources and which doesn't. I also don't see any of the people arguing "keep" actually providing any evidence any actual evidence of the "cultural significance" of any of these words or phrases--which after all is what the article is presumably about. What I do see is unsupported claims that lots of people use such words, but unsupported claims can't be used to demonstrate notability or cultural significance. --Miskwito 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but shorten title to "Words and phrases from Family Guy." It is clear enough that the words are culturally significant. Jindřichův Smith 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand, how is that clear? It's not so just because you say it's so. You need to provide evidence (the definition of "culturally significant" is difficult, but just showing the notability of these words/phrases should be sufficient for now). Aside from "giggity", I really can't think of any words or phrases from Family Guy that could be considered notable. The article barely mentions more than that. What are they? If they're so notable and significant, it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of examples. --Miskwito 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question Does anyone have any strong evidence from a reliable source of the cultural significance of a word or phrase from Family Guy other than Giggity Giggity Goo (the significance of which is covered in Glenn Quagmire#Catchphrases)? --Richmeister_talk 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Partial Answer Sideboob springs to mind. Look at sideboob.org. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The word sideboob exitsed before it was on Family Guy, and a website with an Alexa rank in the high 300,000s isn't all that culturally significant. --Richmeister_talk 21:02, 1 September 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.

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 delete all. If someone wants to be bold and redirect them all as well, that's fine. Wizardman 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide episodes

Guide to: Health & Jealousy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Guide to: Field Trips, Permission Slips, Signs, & Weasels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Tests & When You Like Someone Who Is Going Out With Someone Else (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Spring Fever & School Newspaper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Money and Parties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Getting Organized & Extra Credit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Cellphones & Woodshop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Boys & Girls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Hallways & Friends Moving (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: The Library & Volunteering (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Revenge & School Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: The Bus & Bad Hair Days (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Art Class & Lost and Found (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Reading & Principals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Double Dating & The Last Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Failing & Tutors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Music Class and Class Clown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Yearbook and Career Week (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Spirit Week and Clothes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Secrets and School Car Wash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Shyness and Nicknames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Valentine's Day and School Websites (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Dares and Bad Habits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Gross Biology Dissection and Upperclassmen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Your Body and Procrastination (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Vice Principals and Mondays (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Notebooks and Math (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: School Clubs and Video Projects (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Pep Rallies and Lunch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: The New Semester and Electives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Computer Lab and Backpacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Guide to: Rumors and Photo Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prods, without explanations. All these pages are articles from episodes of the Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide series, these articles are merely plots of these episodes and don't explain why these episodes are outstanding episodes, and notable. They therefore don't meet WP:EPISODE. Many of the other episodes of this series are already deleted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, these are basically unsourced plot synopses and trivia pages. They do not meet WP:EPISODE. --Coredesat 20:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:NOT#PLOT. None of them meet WP:EPISODE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Deleta all per nom.--Max Talk (+) 21:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, these are generally plot summaries without analysis or criticism. We don't do straight plot summaries here. Squidfryerchef 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All Hooray! Not that I don't like Ned, but I'm glad to see someone take the lead in nominating articles about TV episodes for deletion. If I want to read about an episode of Ned, I'll read it in volume "N" of the World Book Mandsford 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I havent seen the show, but it sounds like a very interesting concept, even if it sounds a bit preachy (i.e. don't listen to rumors, etc. ). I wish the effort that went into writing up these plot summaries could be used to write a good, solid main article on the series, which undoubtedly has been discussed in magzaines and newspapers that can be cited. Squidfryerchef 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the LOE - and I can bet with certainty this AFD will devolve into silliness. Will ^(talk) 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add commentary Its a lot easier to find commentary than to delete and have to recreate a summary. There should be a tag created to announce its missing "critical commentary". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per Ten Pound Hammer. Dbromage [Talk] 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect No particular need for them to be deleted, they can be merged and redirect to the LOE page. i ^said 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all in failing WP:EPISODE per lacking coverage from reliable sources Corpx 04:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete i don';t think we'll find commentary for these. I can't see anyone else caring that much about the plots. Of course, I might be wrong, so let's see if Richard can find some. DGG (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all to List of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide episodes. That way, if notability-establishing sources and commentary are forthcoming later, the summaries won't be completely lost. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Josiah Rowe and per WP:EPISODE which actually says to merge and redirect, not delete. DHowell 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all and expand the list to include brief episode summaries. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to a "list of episodes" page. --Fabrictramp 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Josiah and WP:EPISODE. Neranei (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom Harlowraman 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - as failing WP:V due to lack of supporting sources. Further there are no 'real-world influences' nor any sourced critical commentary. TerriersFan 21:07, 23 August 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.