Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article meets no standards whatsoever and has been tagged as such for eight months. No obvious or sincere attempts to improve the article have been made. DKqwerty (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —DKqwerty (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , , , , , , , and . Joe Chill (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not in anyway saying this should be deleted because it's not notable or important enough to merit an article. I'm saying the content of the article is abysmal, no information that couldn't be found on Amazon.com is presented, the rest reads like a fan page, and no attempts have been made to improve the article in any real way since its creation. Maybe AfD was the wrong way to go, and I should have put it up for speedy deletion, but I didn't want to have just two people (myself and whomever removes it) involved in the decision. However, if I were to remove the content that isn't up to standards, I'd simply be blanking the page.
 * If you'd like, you're more than welcome to rewrite it, but basically all new content is necessary. DKqwerty (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Being written badly is not a reason for deletion, but non-notability is. Films don't fit the speedy deletion criteria. This article will be kept for sure because of the sources. Joe Chill (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've identified the subject as notable, but that doesn't address that fact that none of the content is notable, useful, sourced, or coherent. Again, if I removed all of the content in violation of (multiple) quality standards, I'd be blanking the page. To that end, it should be deleted until someone who's serious about the subject undertakes the task of writing a quality article.
 * There's no reason to keep an article with content like this simply for posterity's sake. DKqwerty (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanking all of the content without trying to source it or rewrite it is against the rules. Your opinions go against years of community consensus. Joe Chill (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you get it: I submitted for AfD because I don't want to blank the page because it's against the rules. Rather, I thought that upon inspection, others would agree that the article is of no value in its current state, nor can it be salvaged without a complete re-write. This article has been tagged for months and no one has attempted to improve it in a meaningful way. So rather than leave an article that could just as well be called "I like Chris Rock and here are some funny quotes" kicking around and looking unprofessional, I think it's preferable to remove it from the encyclopedia until someone is willing to make a serious go at the article. To quote the WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I don't think this can be fixed through "normal" editing and would require a complete re-write.
 * However, I'd like to get some more input (hopefully from at least one admin.) before I conclude that I made a mistake in submitting this. DKqwerty (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before AfD is pursued.  In this case, the relevant alternative is fixing the content.  See Joe Chill's sources for ways to do that.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that I have neither the time nor inclination to re-write this article, but in the mean time is serving no legitimate purpose whatsoever other than to keep all links to the article blue rather than red. DKqwerty (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I do understand that. The material as currently written is unprofessional and, frankly, crap.  It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. But we don't pretend Wikipedia is perfect, and indeed we don't even pretend it's any good.  There are relevant disclaimers at the bottom of each page.  If we started to delete everything crap, we could sweep away most of what's currently in the encyclopaedia. There might be advantages to doing that, but the prevailing view at the moment is that when we find a crap article, we should treat it as an opportunity to show off our article-fixing skills. Further, AfD is not cleanup.  Nobody gets to nominate an article for deletion in the hope that someone else should do a load of work fixing it.  Wikipedia's very, very full of people who love to offer their opinion about what someone else should do.  But what we're actually short of is doers, not arguers and opinion holders.  The rules as presently designed are supposed to turn every Wikipedian into a doer rather than an opinion-holder, if that makes sense.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of sources out there, seems notable enough to me. Bad writing is not a reason for deletion as stated above. And DKqwerty, just because you don't have time to edit the article and make it suitable for Wikipedia, doesn't mean that the article should be deleted.  Acro  X   17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Now it's a stub. Deletion is not the solution to articles in need of improvement. - BalthCat (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable routine/program, and because AfD is not cleanup. It's been fixed and needs improvement, but poor writing on a notable subject can be fixed outside the AfD venue.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The special won 2 Emmys, which I've just noted and referenced in the article. Sarilox (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Joe Chill has easily established this entry is notable and has sufficient sources out there, and I'm willing to bet there are others out there that he didn't touch upon. It's unfortunate that the entry hasn't been improved for so long, but there is no deadline. Why not take this to the talk page at WikiProject Comedy or something like that to see if anyone there has the time or desire to improve it? —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per the diligent WP:AFTER provided by Joe Chill. With respects to the nominator's concerns, that no one fixed it yet is a surmountable problem... and Joe's sources show just that the problem is correctable through normal editing. Just takes a little Wikilove.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:59, 11 November 2009 (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.