Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake Shemp


 * 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. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Some strong suggestions for redirecting but no consensus for a target. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fake Shemp

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nothing particularly notable about this article. "Fake Shemp" is a neologism used as an expression by one director (Sam Raimi) as a substitute for the well-accepted term Body double. The article itself basically describes the practice of body doubles and stand-ins from a very incomplete, focused perspective (as if the Three Stooges had completely invented the concept, and Sam Raimi is the only person to have ever thought to use stand-ins since). It uses a single reliable source to establish the fact that Shemp had a stand-in - the other sources are other Wikipedia articles. In the article's own words, "use of the term is limited". Cute cartoon, though. Badger Drink (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Joe Palma. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if the article is to be re-directed, it should be to Body double, as this neologism is a synonym for that. Redirecting it to Joe Palma is... more "trivia" than "encyclopedia". Badger Drink (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that Joe Palma is the only person to whom this label was given with any degree of notability... --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People informally talking about some guy being a fake Shemp is somehow more notable than the term being used in the credits of movies? Nah. The thing is, if someone types Fake Shemp, the odds are they're looking for what, not who. We don't have "Fake Julia Roberts" or "Fake Kim Basinger" redirect to Shelley Michele. "Fake Bela Lugosi" doesn't go to Ed Wood's wife's chiropractor. "Star of Naked Gun" doesn't redirect to Leslie Neilson, "Tallest building in the world" doesn't redirect to that ugly monstrosity built by indentured servants in the environmental blight known as Dubai, and, perhaps most tellingly, Fifth Beatle is an article about various applications of the term, not an article devoted to figuring out who the "ultimate" fifth Beatle was. Encyclopedias are for answering "what". Search engines are for "who" and trivia in general. Badger Drink (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article has gone way beyond it's original intentions. Fake Shemp has become an accepted term within the industry for a Body Double, but if you feel that it doesn't deserve it's own page yet then it should be redirected to Body Double. I agree that the heavy reference to Joe Palma and the stooges is somewhat misplaced and off-subject and editing may be required. But only about 20% of my original article has remained, thus I feel it no longer is in my hands, but I thank you for calling this to my attention. However, please note that the heavy editing and additions by other people seem to indicate that it has become a very common term, much thought about and searched. I feel deletion is too strong of an action, while editing and/or redirection and inclusion in Body Double may be much more levelheaded. Act as you please, but please act wisely. On a personal note, I would like to ask you to refrain from making politically sensitive statements when acting in the capacity of an editor that undermine your reliability. Also, please create a userpage. Although some of your comments have merit and you seem like an intelligent person, it's a little hard to take you seriously (and your talk page certainly doesn't really help your cause). An editor's job is to know what needs to be corrected and not who is to be insulted or blamed in order to make your point. Thank you for your concerns. --The Singularity (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Act as you please, but please create a user page or I, Exalted and Esteemed Wikipedia Editor the Singularity, shan't take you seriously"? Really? Sorry, some of us have matured past the sort of teenaged self-obsession that inspires user pages. I'd gladly refund the financial and emotional costs of needing to click one extra link before figuring out if I've been around long enough to take seriously, except doing so would only encourage continued whinging. I'm not quite sure what it is about my talk page that also hampers your ability to control your righteous tsk-tsking urges - I'd ask you to leave a message there, but I'm afraid your doing so would hamper my ability to take said page seriously. Badger Drink (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for effectively proving my point. Now we can get back to the issue at hand and seize this senseless squabble. I'm sorry if I touched a sore point. I reread what I wrote and I guess I came across a bit rude. Sorry about that. It was not meant as a reproach and I apologize. It was meant as advice and no disrespect intended. You are of course right that a user page is no requirement, but it does help in establishing a character in this no-face internet world. I wouldn't go as extreme as saying it is a 'teenage self-obsession', although I do get your point. You have a very valid argument, the article needs correcting. I suggest we remove the heavy references to Joe Palma and leave it as is, or merge with Body Double, the former being my preference. Any thoughts? --The Singularity (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep As a significant term in its own right. It may mean something similar, but apparently not exactly.   DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it does seem to be a distinct topic, and it should not be redirected so long as body double doesn't mention the term. Powers T 14:02, 28 September 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.