Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred 3: Camp Fred


 * 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. Early speedy close per WP:OUTCOMES. Nominator has withdrawn and there are no outstanding !votes for deletion  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fred 3: Camp Fred

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contains absolutely no references to establish notability or verifiability, PROD was removed without explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, the article contains enough third party sources to establish notability now. 117Avenue (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete  The movie exists and has aired, though there were very few sources since it's darned obvious from the Olympic weekend premiere that it was burned off. If some can be found it can be turned into a keep, but not in this form of a textwalled plot summary.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An addressable issue that requires simple editing, not deletion. See search results below.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Concerns have been addressed, but the long plot summary does need culling (I was saying more deletion on that more than the lack of sources, which I knew would be addressed).  Nate  • ( chatter )
 * Was Easily done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This article has spawned from a minor edit war on Fred 2: Night of the Living Fred. In the edit war, there was a section called "Sequel" that was uncited, and I deleted. The next day, the other party re-inserted it, redlinked the title, and cited his source. The day after that, I removed the red link. Finally, the other party created this article and bluelinked it on the Fred 2 page. It has absolutely no resources and is simply the result of a pointless edit war. Even if resources are found, it should be deleted. Newellington (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As numerous sources for the sequel are readily available, a far better tack than repeatedly removing the good faith, non-controversial edits in a "minor edit war", would have to actually sourced the sequel section yourself or shown how it was sourcable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment: My point with my argument is that one WikiUser is just trying to prove a point and get his way with uncited information on a new article that stemmed from this minor edit war. I understand that I can offer sources, but I personally think that the article shouldn't have been created all at once, unsourced, where everyone can see it. It looks more like a fan base to me than a Wikipedia article, and should be deleted and replaced, slowly. It can most definitely be improved in its current state, but the better thing to do would be to start all over, so it doesn't look like a fan base, covered up by citations. Newellington (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Response: We do not begin and start over when issues can otherwise be addressed through regular editing... as IS being done. (more below).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Solid Keep per meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG through sources being available for improving the article. Sure, we have a topic contributed by an unschooled newcomer, and the thing as nominated is a glaring mass of plot and contained no sources. So what?  When WP:BEFORE finds that sources ARE available, we fix such article... not delete them through retaliation at what a newcomer contributed elsewhere.  We do not delete because something is a possible target of probematic edits. We can watch.  We can protect.  We can improve such ourselves and show through example that it CAN be done. As shown above... one such sets of repeatedly removed edits in a related article were ultimately sourced. regular editing is far preferred over a battling over addressable issues. Note: it took only took about two minutes to begin adding sources.  What we need now is the use of more of the available sources, and someone (maybe even me) to trim the living daylights out of the newcomer's overlong plot section. Addressable issues rarely require deletion, and AFD is not for forcing cleanup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I will say the same thing to you that I said to Schmidt. The article [WP:UGLY|stinks]. The best thing to do is to delete it in its current form and replace it with something that doesn't look like a fan site. Sources were available, but the person creating the article chose to make it look like a fan site, completely uncited. I personally think that once we work past the bias that this article contains, we can choose to ditch the article in its current form or improve on the current article. In the same way as people choose to stop editing from one account completely and begin fresh, articles can undergo the same type of process. Newellington (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Response: Any issue with one editor's lacking clue is to be addressed in a diferent venue. We do not nominate their contributions in retaliation, specially when such contributions are of sourcable notable topics. As stated above, we do not begin and start over when issues can otherwise be easily addressed through regular editing... as IS being done. Sure... it did "stink" when nominated but so what? It no longer stinks.  Your claim that an unschooled newbie being interesed in editing a topic somehow and automatically creates a negative WP:BIAS is unfounded... specially as what's always worth remembering is that if someone is not interested in a topic, they have little inclination to actually edit it.  Being myself active with project film, I DO have such inclination and I can put aside any personal feelings about the lack of quality of Fred projects. Point here being, though I personally think Fred projects are pretty crappy, they DO have sourcable notability... and THAT'S how our inclusion criteria work. We do not punish someone's being interested in contributing, and instead guide them in how to do properly so.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Topic meets WP:GNG per Journal Star article and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfunny, but Keep While the so-called "comedic tastes" of the subject can certainly be called into question, the notability of said subject cannot. Numerous reliable sources have covered the film, therefore it meets WP:GNG. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment That much is true. As I have said to Schmidt and MichaelQSchmidt, we can choose to self-destruct the article like some users choose to start fresh, or we can improve upon the current article. It would be much easier to destroy the current article and replace it with one that isn's a fansite. Newellington (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Response: WP:CLEANSTART refers to a user wishing a "clean start", and has nothing to do with article content. You might be thinking of ""blow it up and start over" which is an essay dealing with "pages so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over"... a situation which does not exist in this instance, bad as the original version might have been when nominated. Have you read WP:UGLY?   More, you seem to be acknowledging notability, but appear for some reason to simply not want editors to work to improve what we already have, as IS already being done. Plot section has already been massively reduced and sources have begun to be added. Per deletion policy we fix the fixable.  Addressing addressable isues is specifically per editing policy and doing so improves the project, while deleting notable topics that could otherwise benefit from regular editing does not.  As for starting from scratch... sorry, not reasonable here.  Such would be unneccesarily bitey toward newcomers, and NOTHING in the article fell under WP:CANTFIX.  A better result is that the newcomers whom you feel might be too interested, might actually learn from the positive examples of our proactively and positively addessing issues.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on Response to Comment I use WP:CLEANSTART analogously. Also, given that the plot and the sources are improving, my second option may turn out to work. However, I would much rather just blow it up. I'm not trying to bite a newcomer, I just want them to understand that an article can't be created out of an edit war! Please at least consider my argument, please! Newellington (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Being one of those willing and able to address your earlier concerns toward a (former) lack of sourcing and problems with (former) content, I simply do not find your argument about starting over to be very convincing. And that the article was initiated in response to a conflict over addressable issues with another article elsewhere is only worth consideration if the new article's topic was non-notable or if issues were not addressable. We do not delete notable topics in retaliation. We fix them.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Final Response Two things: 1. I do realize that problems have begun to be solved. Therefore, I withdraw all of my "delete" arguments on Fred 3. 2: I was NOT trying to be bitey to a newcomer! Newellington (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The stated problems of no reputable sources and a gaping mess of plot have been fixed. The problems of it being started by a minor edit war have been resolved. Therefore, the only plausible solution is to not blow it up, but instead to improve on it as it is. Option two of all of my previous delete arguments seems to be the one that most people agree on; and since that is the definition of "consensus", it can be assumed that this is the correct way to do it, at least for now. If the newbie tries to revert it back to the gaping mess of plot that was completely uncited, however, I would like to be the one to warn him that this AfD is still open. Newellington (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One of your two !votes needs to be struck through. And if any editor shows problem edits and will not involve in discussion, you always have WP:ANI.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Schmidt: This has been done. Thank you for solving this dispute calmly and without useless edit warring. Sincerely, Newellington (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to have helped. We will need to leep a watch on the article though, as Fred does have fans who may edit incorrectly. If THAT happens, all we need do is open calm discussions... and perhaps send them to WP:PRIMER to encourage a little CLUE. 18:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * 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.