Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Young

Charlie Young was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Cool Hand Luke  02:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic fancruft. Charlie Young a fictional character on a TV drama. He isn't a real person who cured cancer, or invented the space shuttle. He's a fictional character. He's not even a character responsible for fomenting a major movement in real life (like say, Holden Caulfield). Does every fictional character require an autonomous article? I'd like to see this article, and other "character articles" Merged and Redirected to either of the West Wing, or a to-be-created West Wing Characters or List of West Wing Characters articles since the minutiae about a TV show shouldn't merit a endless spring of autonomous articles. That's what a fan website (like West Wing Continuity Guide) or an "official fan book" is for. If that isn't possible, then Delete. --ExplorerCDT 21:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. If this one gets deleted, I will go after the rest of this non-encyclopedic fancruft. --ExplorerCDT 21:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep. We have thousands of non-major fictional characters as entries on Wikipedia, from the cast of well-known shows to more obscure ones. There's no reason to delete all the characters from The West Wing other than for personal reasons. If we do this for The West Wing, it out to be done for every television series' characters on Wikipedia, with the full maintenance of the larger individual articles in the main article on the series. If you're going to go after Charlie Young, go put a vote for deletion on Jean-Luc Picard and see how that goes. By your policy, every fictional character should only have an entry on the work from which they came, including such major characters as Holden Caulfield. --Xinoph 21:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. Comment (after your edit) - The TV character of Charlie Young didn't change America. Holden Caulfield, and others like him (Archie Bunker) did.  That's the difference, and why I referenced him.  But in other cases, put a section on the main page titled "list of characters", with brief blurbs.  Anymore than a blurb, and you might as well run the official-fan-book-of-the-(insert tv show name here)-industry out of business. --ExplorerCDT 22:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the page I'm working on for The Grand Illusion (movie). That's how I think a Wikipedia article on a work of fiction (and its characters) should be handled...I don't think Captains von Rauffenstein and de Boeldieu need their own pages, a cast listing is sufficient. Not that an brief blurb about each character would be interesting anyway. --ExplorerCDT 22:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment I have nothing against the West Wing, actually I watch it every week (Season 6 looks promising where Season 5 really lacked good stories). But as to deleting the plethora of fancruft articles, we might as well start somewhere.  Join my crusade, and we'll clean Wikipedia of this junk (and eventually Jean-Luc Picard too, but even the Vandals had to sack small villages before they marched on Rome). Solidarity, comrade. --ExplorerCDT 22:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you serious, or are you doing a parody to mock deletionists? I don't read sarcasm well, but some of your comments seem drenched in it. Cool Hand Luke  11:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just don't think it falls under the Deletion Policy categories and doesn't belong there. Again, I assert that if this is done with Charlie Young it should be done with every fictional character, regardless of its original source material or historical importance. We should have a consistent policy. I don't have a problem with fictional characters having a listing on Wikipedia.--Xinoph 22:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment - that I don't disagree with. Let's get rid of them all.  I'm ready to run to the barricades, how about you? Deletion Policy question though...this isn't encylopedic and has no potential to be, it's fancruft.  And when you look at What Wikipedia is not it says plainly that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a repository for fan pages.--ExplorerCDT 22:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- Comment: Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you've a right to delete it. You don't have a right to burn books either! If you don't like these (admitadly light hearted) articles then just don't read them, but please don't try telling other people what they can and can't read or right on this website. It's supposed to be for open access as long as you stick to the rules, and no rules have been broken here.
 * (editorial comment: the unsigned comment directly above is from 81.157.123.246, and the user's only contribution to Wikipedia, -ExplorerCDT 00:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC))


 * Two policies, in my opinion have been broken: One–this is fancruft; two–it is non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia says it is not meant to be a fan guide, and that non-encyclopedic articles can be remedied through deletion.  I have nothing against the West Wing or its characters, and to accuse me of being a "book burner" or a "censor" is inflammatory rhetoric.  It is not that I hate the content of the article, it is that I support the position that this is not the proper place for them. Wikipedia is not the source of all information for fans of the West Wing, nor does it state a desire to be.  If you think otherwise, I would encourage you to go ahead and build a fan website to serve that need.  But to claim (resorting to the rhetoric you used) that there shouldn't be a debate on this&mdash;just because there are people out there that like this type of article&mdash;is akin to the tyranny of a majority. --ExplorerCDT 00:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry not to have logged on before (the comment before the last is mine). And no, I'm not a big contributor, but I still think that my opinion is valid. But anyway, back to our healthy debate: what's fancruft? The Charlie Young article may be a bit dull but it's not really non-encyclopaidic. It's pretty matter of fact actually, well matter of fiction anyway - but this is fine in Wikipedia (at least as far as my understanding of the rules goes). May I refer you to the discussion of a notional Trillian (from Hitch Hikers Guide) article that is contained within the rules definition (check your fiction)? I'm not trying to halt debate just because I disagree with you, I just like the west wing, like the west wing content on wikipedia and have enjoyed reading it. I've checked through the rules and I honestly don't think that this article breaks any of them. - broadstoneplace


 * But don't you think that content is better suited for a fan website, and not an encyclopedia? The West Wing hasn't changed the world.  Esoteric desire to memorialize the characters is best done on a fan website or in the treatment of an "inside the West Wing" book marketed to fans.  It isn't encyclopedic. --ExplorerCDT 23:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep this. Just because it isn't of incredible social importance doesn't mean that it isn't worth being in Wikipedia. The article itself has it's problems just like any other article but it shouldn't be deleted. --The[[User Talk:TheGrza| Grza ]] 00:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: whilst I really dislike fancruft there are a lot worse offenders than articles, such as this, which at least refer to major characters in a major show. You really need to look at some of the other fancruft on wikipedia: one-off Simpsons jokes and characters/races appearing in single obscure Star Wars/Trek books are far worse in my mind. Rje 00:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Join with me, fight the crusade, and we'll clean Wiki of that useless garbage. Just point me there and I'll put them up for VfD. --ExplorerCDT 00:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep: To ExplorerCDT: No I don't.  I appreciate the premise of your argument but I just don't agree with you. To my mind, encyclopaedias have been full of fictional references for as long as I've read them - and long before wikipedia came into existance. In fact, since wikipedia is not space limited (at least not like a paper encyclopaedia would be) there is surely an even greater argument for permissiveness; to encourage a diverse range of articles from both reality and fiction is to enrich the potential of the wikipedia experience - yet we retain the choice to read them or to not. - broadstoneplace I don't know a single encyclopedia (print or online) that dedicates as much space to individual characters or items, especially the obscure ones. Instead, they might reference fictional characters in an analysis of a book, but never would they dedicate an entire article, for instance, to list the harlequin romances Madame Bovary read in the Flaubert novel of the same name. --ExplorerCDT 00:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wiki may not be paper, but it is bandwidth -- something more expensive and not renewable.


 * Note: this appaears to be a lost/widowed VfD. Apparently all the commentary above came from the page notice alone, so it seems to have some fans/maintainers. Keep. Cool Hand Luke  08:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm a great fan of The West Wing, but I'm not aware of this character having any influence outside of the TV programme. Therefore, I vote delete. Don't bother responding to me with lists of less notable characters in other TV programmes that haven't been deleted, because if they are less notable, I'd vote delete for them too given the chance. Average Earthman 10:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To ExplorerCDT: Quite so. But I don't know of any encyclopaedia that has this many diverse articles in it - period! The whole strength of wikipedia for me (and the wiki medium for that matter) is its range and diversity of subject and source.
 * Bandwith is cheap, and the information is more or less valid. I propose to merge all "West Wing" character into one article. Wyllium 10:32, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
 * If you found a cheap provider, give me names. But saying it's cheap leads me to think you're not someone who signs over checks for it. Agree wholeheartedly with your merge proposal. --ExplorerCDT 15:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The person that does, in fact, pay the bills, agrees here that "harddisks are cheap" and that there's no reason not to have an article on every character from a sitcom. Wyllium 07:28, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't think we can vote "Merge and redirect to redlinked article," as merges are supposed to be to extant articles.  I agree that a The West Wing characters would be an article that could hold small paragraphs on each character.  Note that "then he dates X, and they go out, but" is too minute.  Geogre 15:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Charaters on the West Wing (n.b. I think it's The West Wing), since it has now been created. The show is enough of a cultural icon, or was, that it will probably be discussed the way that "All in the Family" was, at least by Americans, and it's very popular in overseas syndication, so a "characters" page is unobjectionable to me.  However, one characters page ought to do it. Geogre 18:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * How about this for a non-redlinked topic: Characters on the West Wing --ExplorerCDT 16:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - SimonP 16:14, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge/redir Characters on the West Wing. Niteowlneils 17:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Mergecruft. GRider 18:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Either keep or merge. However, I will not support a merge unless the level of detail is kept constant--there's no need to remove this material. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's completely inappropriate that this one opening credits-level character from a major TV drama has been chosen for a crusade to change the consensus on fictional character deletion. As Meelar points out, if this one character was deleted we'd still have all the other West Wing characters to get to; never mind hundreds or thousands of similar and lower level characters from other high-profile fiction. Samaritan 19:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And wouldn't a Characters on the West Wing page merging in the articles on every character (or even all but the top several) probably be too large? Samaritan 19:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The people who advocate merging this often also want to reduce the level of detail--an outcome I disagree with. If this much detail is kept in Characters on the West Wing, fine--but it would be bad article structure. Thus, ideally we'd keep this page outright. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:54, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably not, actually. This page is short.  Take a look at any of the Featured Articles lately, and you'll see that they run over 32kb usually.  The "too long" is not a byte issue as much as it is a "can't find anything in it" issue.  A "Charcters" page only needs to have a subhead per character, and it won't get too long.  As for the level of detail, come on!  People can watch the show!  How is it encyclopedic to get into the love lives of the characters and repeat every plot?  The show has been on the air for 6 years now.  It's the (new) writers' job to create soap opera-like changes (Sorkin didn't, but he's gone).  You can make it too long, if you go into fanboi mode, yes, but these are not long pages and certainly not too long for a merge.  Geogre 21:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Any above average copy editor can cut the number of words down by half for the Charlie Young article alone without losing anything of substance.  The article about the actor Dulé Hill article is one-third the size of his character's article.--ExplorerCDT 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you you a below-average copy editor then? Why are you nominating for deletion when you really want it merged and redirected? You do know you can make redirects, right? Cool Hand Luke  22:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't read the initial reason I recommended this. And at least it has prompted a debate.--ExplorerCDT 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You say your first option is to create a page, merge, and redirect. Why didn't you? Cool Hand Luke  00:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not a dictator. There is value in achieving consensus, you condescending jackass. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 00:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Easy, man. There's actually debate about whether these votes do anything but give an opinion on delete or keep (merging being a subclass of the latter). Since you wanted a merge, you could have been bold, or even just brought it up on the talk page beforehand; that way especially interested parties could have helped you out or just rejected it. Consensus is good, but in the right forum. Cool Hand Luke  01:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

** I don't have to ExplorerCDT - I've got wikipedia! ;-)
 * Delete, no redirect. Insignificant fluff of no interest to anyone but fans of the show. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. Failing that, Delete.  -- WOT 23:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, its a good start to an article about this character. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  00:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * A good START? Geesh. Go write a book for the show's die-hard fans if you want more. --ExplorerCDT 00:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:50, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Decently written, not so crufty.  There's just no fine line.  It's sort of "I know junk when I see it", and that just doesn't apply here.  RickK 00:55, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think Justice Potter Stewart was referring to porn, not junk, in Jacobellis v. Ohio &mdash;ExplorerCDT 01:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 05:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - character of valid show. Wikipedia is well known for its coverage of popular culture topics and this is part of it. Capitalistroadster 10:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like well-written, thorough, well-researched, material of encyclopedic quality on almost any topic. This isn't bad at all, it appears to be part of a systematic project, and the amount of material being amassed is too large to fit into a single article. This isn't fancruft, it's fancraft. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Again, it might be nicer if such contributers directed their attention elsewhere, but there is no point to deleting non-substandard work - even if only on a fictional TV show character. zoney &#09827; talk 17:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This article is here not because it is substandard but to make some sort of point, and this isn't the way we change policy around here. Put the torches and pitchforks down. Gamaliel 18:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Preferably keep. If that fails, merge without reducing content and redirect to Characters on the West Wing. --Goobergunch 02:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. wikipedia is an encyclopedia. it is not a repository for every plotline and character from every tv show ever made. i personally like the west wing but it's all fancruft. delete this. it can all be included in one article on the west wing. then we can go for all of the rest of it. one line jokes from the simpsons. things that appeared in star trek once. delete the lot. i stand in solidarity with ExplorerCDT. come on. ready your burning torches. sharpen your pitch forks. delete the fancruft. --Bucephalus 13:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you like the Frankenstein angry mob idiom (I prefer the 1830 French Revolution/Paris Commune 1871 idiom)...you forgot the Lederhosen.  Nothing like an angry mob without pants.  Just means extra caution with those pitchforks.ExplorerCDT 16:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * i promise you comrade, pants will play their full part in our revolution. when we've guillotined this we can storm the bastilles of fancruft --Bucephalus 17:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think fictional stuff should be kept as long as they are highlighted as fictional. --JuntungWu 11:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: the problem isn't with the inclusion of fictional things. of course there should be a page for The West Wing (television), but seperate pages for each character do not belong in an encyclopedia. wikipedia is unique, but there's no need to fill it with banal fancruft.--Bucephalus 12:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.