Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver (3rd nomination)


 * 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.

Once I discounted the comments that either boiled down to accusations of bad-faith on the part of the nominator, or assertions along the lines of "It is interesting", "It is useful", "It is popular", or "I like it", only Peregrine Fisher, John Z and DHowell actually referred to sources that they felt established notability. Since these comments were outweighed by those feeling that the article failed our notability policy, I think this has to be a Delete Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE - After the close above, closer Tim Vickers agreeded to let the article be merged instead of deleted. A. Nobody then merged the material. The merge is identified in the history of List of problems solved by MacGyver by closer Tim Vickers. -- Suntag  ☼  08:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List of problems solved by MacGyver
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not notable and is fancruft. There is solely an in universe context and no real world notability can be established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as i know, "in universe context" is not a valid reason for deletion. There are many articles that describe things that only apply to a universe created by a book, movie, or television series. Why specifically harass this one? --Commons:User:Greggor88 10:50, November 14th (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggor88 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it can be. Please read Wikipedia's deletion policy. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep You only started this because it's on digg. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment doesn't address any of my concerns. Recommend you strike it and write something that adds to the discussion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please try to assume good faith with the nom. MuZemike  ( talk ) 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well did you nominate this article for deletion because you saw it on Digg or not? --Pixelface (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't a valid reason for why to keep. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge cited real-world context to MacGyver and leave behind the plot detail. We can copy the article's external link to the main article to point readers to a list of MacGyverisms.  And yeah, being on Digg.com, others should be forewarned of dealing with popular vote vs. policy-driven consensus. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify my !vote, Wikipedia articles use plot summaries in support of a topic as fleshed out by real-world context. This article does the opposite; real-world context was provided (probably to rescue the article from previous AfDs) to support all this plot detail.  I think that the real-world context that was added was misapplied and merging the information to the main article should suffice, especially with the one external link detailing MacGyverisms off-wiki. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's been nominated twice before and always failed. Plus, as mentioned above, the fact that this nomination came up the same day that the article was posted on Digg is no coincidence. Eightball (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw it on digg, noticed the problems with the article, and brought it to AFD. Being in the spotlights illuminates problems just as well as it illuminates the high points of Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the most recent AFD is nearly one year ago. Consensus can change. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article has been nominated for AfD before is irrelevant. Consensus can change over time.  The first AfD was to keep, while the second afD had no consensus, defaulting to keep.  Who knows?  The outcome of this AfD may be to delete.  I would encourage a stronger argument than the fact it's been up for AfD before.  The system is clearly designed for an article to be renominated. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't a reason to keep. It's part WP:NOREASON and part "It was nominated before and it was kept." That's not a reason. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Macgyver problem solving in my opinion can stand on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this should be kept. It's a popular subject in of itself among persons. Its common for analogies to be made explicitly to how macgyver solved something. A couple of published books have been written specifically on MacGyver and his solving of particular dilemmas. Its generally a subject of its own. I think that this is just a ploy because the article appeared on Digg. Nobody said anything when this comment was mentioned weeks before today when it appeared in the HTML of an xkcd comment referencing the skill of Macgyver solving dilemmas. Though, because it appears on Digg it needs to be nominated AGAIN for a THIRD time for deletion. Wtf? The people have already spoken TWICE before that the article is fine where it is.


 * Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect plot detail; see WP:PLOT. We strive to be an encyclopedia by providing real-world context about a topic, only including plot summaries to complement the topic.  This article is by no means a summary. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep In many ways, MacGyver's problem-solving was at the heart of the eponymous television show, and as such constitutes a relevant encyclopedia topic (both because of its centrality to MacGyver and because MacGyver's problem-solving has entered the popular consciousness -- clever, parsimonious solutions to real-world problems are often likened to something MacGyver would have come up with.) Killdevil (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the MacGyver's problem-solving is central to the TV series, but this does not permit an indiscriminate collection of plot detail. The real-world context of MacGyverisms can be merged to the main article, and a few examples can reflect the topic, but not every single problem he's solved in the TV series. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting and useful. While sometimes consensus can change over time, there's nothing that's happened in the past year that should change the reasoning behind the previous consensus.  Of course, now that the article was on Digg someone desiring to delete it will probably say that we shouldn't listen to all the keep votes.  That would be silly, so when that happens, in the words of that one scientist in that one simpsons episode, "let's not listen." Balonkey (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be worth reading WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING. AfD is not a democracy where the popular vote triumphs; arguments must be grounded in policies and guidelines and not personal opinions of interest and usefulness. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete This needs to go on deletionpedia for eternal preservation. -72.93.211.14 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has both significance and relevance to many engineers. It uses multiple illustrations to highlight the fact that many practical engineering problems can be solved using wits and available technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.54.133 (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep MacGyver remains in popular culture, and people have to know the problems and how he's solved them. 68.43.196.134 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If they are interested in plot detail, the primary sources are not beyond their reach. Wikipedia is not intended as a substitute to watching the TV series.  For fictional topics, it covers real-world context, and it can be complemented by select plot detail, not every single problem solved by MacGyver. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As mentioned by Greggor88 being "in universe context" is not a basis for deletion, untold thousands of articles exist related to the "universe" of specific literature or other media.  Additionally MacGyver and the resourcefulness the character demonstrated in the series have become integrated into the very fabric of society (in the U.S. at least). As represented by many references or parodies in other media as well as being used in ordinary conversations, especially when referencing examples of or need for unusual/exceptional resourcefulness. Raitchison (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia is constantly changing, and articles that are solely made up of plot detail continue to go out the window.  You are arguing for the importance of MacGyverisms, and I don't think anyone disputes this; see MacGyver.  This, however, does not merit an indiscriminate collection of plot detail.  Plot detail needs to complement real-world context in a limited fashion, not the other way around. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete While interesting it is not notable, more akin to trivia and not noteworthy at that. --nycmstar (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I love reading this article, it's not encyclopedic. BrokenSegue 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a desire to delete? Can you elaborate on what you mean by not being encyclopedic?  It would help build consensus for how to deal with this article, using policies and guidelines. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Total WP:FANCRUFT, not all that notable. There's already a List of MacGyver episodes; this is basically a duplication of that, only more verbose. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just checked WP:FANCRUFT and will quote from the very first sentence "importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". I find it hard to argue that this article qualified in any way.  MacGyver and specifically his resourcefulness have become well known in general society to the point where "MacGuyver" is ofent used as a verb and is understood by people who have never even seen the show.  Raitchison (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PLOT by design. This article not only fails to present real world context, there's no room for its inclusion. This article is basically a spinout to keep trivial details off of the episode list. Jay32183 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Excellent example of what Wikipedia is best at. - Mvuijlst (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean best at unconventional articles? I think a better example would be the recent Featured Article of the Day, Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany.  This particular article is solely lacking in real-world context, being entirely composed of plot detail. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's not really fancruft. It is a list of things that Macgyver has solved. I can easily see someone turning to Wikipedia to cite instances of what happened in the series. Keep, keep a thousand times keep. Wikipedia is not paper, relevant, notable, take your pick. StayinAnon (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fancruft is just a coarse word for an overabundance of plot detail. If we cited instances of what happened in the series, we are still using primary sources and still skimping on real-world context.  The AfD has nothing to do with the instances being unsourced; it has to do with the fact that the article's primary goal is to convey plot detail, not to provide real-world context about the given topic.  The TV series in general and MacGyverisms are notable, both being covered at MacGyver.  This does not permit one to go on at length about the in-universe ongoings of a TV series.  We have an external link that we can point to for a collection of MacGyverisms off-wiki. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Considering "solving problems" is the cornerstone of a very notable show, this is in fact notable.— DMCer ™  00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability is not inherited. A real Wikipedia article about MacGyverisms would explore what writers had to do to come up with new MacGyverisms every episode, how realistic the MacGyverisms are, how the MacGyverisms served as a source of inspiration, how MacGyverisms have permeated themselves in various media, et cetera.  This does not mean it's OK to indiscriminately collect plot detail.  Plot detail is meant to complement real-world context, like the various points I suggested.  (And man, am I tired of making counter-arguments, haha.) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge reasonable well-cited initial paragraphs to series article; delete the rest. The specific details of per-episode difficulties is merely regurgitation of plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator. This article doesn't, nor will it ever, have real world notability established in independent sources.  Previous AFDs aren't relevant to this discussion, but while others who refer to the previous discussions should note that in the last AFD no consensus was established.  It is time to remove clear fancruft from Wikipedia and enforce well established policies Carlsher (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC). — Carlsher (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, for all the reasons people gave above to keep it. And of course to stem the tide of stupidly deleting articles just for being fandom-related. --CF90 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia a more interesting encyclopedia and information resource than Encyclopedia Britannica. MacGyver is a notable TV show. And "fancruft" isn't even a real word (if you think it is, go ahead and try to write a decent article about fancruft). Notability is not something that can be "established." In response to Jay32183, this article is note solely a plot summary (nevermind that the editor who proposed WP:PLOT recently expressed at WT:NOT that he wants PLOT removed from WP:NOT). It's time for people who incorrectly use the word "notability" and who use the word "fancruft" to actually write articles on those topics. I would also ask the closing admin that if they decide to delete the article, please userfy it first under User:A Nobody's userspace, because I'm sure he would like to work on it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This whole idea of it having no "in-universe context" is ludicrous.  People obviously find it interesting, and for that reason alone it has in-universe context.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made by people for people, and as such we all are the ones who decide what has context and what does not.  If people appreciate it, if it has context for them, if there are situations in which they desire the information that is provided on this page, then there is no reason why it should be deleted.  --C4 Diesel (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's interesting is not an argument to keep, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. People can appreciate things like manuals, guides, and textbooks, but Wikipedia doesn't present these to people.  It provides encyclopedic coverage of a given topic, and per WP:PLOT, plot details are meant to complement the real-world context of a fictional topic.  As you can tell from this article, it is more plot detail than it is real-world context.  Articles need to be written in accordance to policies and guidelines.  Topics can be interesting and appeal to a wide number of people as long as they are in accordance, but this article clearly is not. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This article may be based entirely on fictitious plot, but it is still worth keeping. Maybe it should just be more obvious that this is based on a television show, and not necessarily part of the real world.  I see this article as being much more informative and useful than many one sentence articles on small, unnotable towns from third world countries, and soccer players that have done nothing significant besides being on a team.  There are also multiple articles (stubs and full size) based on characters and other elements of plot, why not an extensive article on the actions of one of these notable characters.  --omnipotence407 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you find other articles that you think fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are welcome to nominate them for AfD. There have been a number of articles full of plot detail, but they can wind up getting deleted if they lack merit.  For this article, I don't think anyone disputes that the TV show is notable and that MacGyverisms within them are notable.  However, this does not suddenly make it OK to write nothing but plot detail in an article.  We don't include plot detail because it's informative and useful on its own; we include plot detail to complement the real-world context of fictional topics. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. Though falls into the vast minutiae of popular culture, this article's references to science and everyday objects make for a thorough study spanning several subjects that expands the interest and knowledge of Wikipedia readers. This is of value. Truly it is unlikely that a reader of articles on chemistry and physics would trace information to an article about MacGyver, but fans of MacGyver who want to replicate the character's problem-solving in the form of experiments suddenly becomes students of the sciences. This is applied science—if not at its finest, at least at its most entertaining. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the article should be a guidebook instead of a real article, full of plot detail to theoretically educate readers to become students of the sciences? There are many resources of value in the world, but Wikipedia's goal is to provide encyclopedic articles, not guidebooks. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia. Where else can people go to find things like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.72.80 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't more than just an encyclopedia. Its definition as an encyclopedia is one of the five pillars.  It is not a collection of indiscriminate plot detail or a guidebook. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 06:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone with a LiveJournal or website could recreate this info. Lots42 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Zero encyclopedic value, completely trivial.  We are not a MacGyver fansite, we're an E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A.  Please get this through your skulls people.  JBsupreme (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep EVERYTHING is fancruft to the novice.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect (and cull), MacGyverisms are obviously notable (the word entered the English language), but most of them cannot be verified without looking at the episodes themselves making the content unverifiable. We can use the ones referenced in outside sources as examples and mention a list of MacGyverisms in the external links section. Result: we retain the information and don't have a massive list of unsourced text. (Disclosure: my full username is MacGyverMagic)- Mgm|(talk) 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- as completely violating WP:ENC and WP:NOT. If possible, ban anyone who supports it from ever editing this site, as they clearly are not hre to edit an encyclopedia. (I know that last bit won't happen, but, geez, what's wrong with people?) DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on that logic (super strict interpretation of WP:ENC as the exclusive domain of reality based subjects we could make a case for AfDing every article that has anything to do with any work of fiction. 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raitchison (talk • contribs)
 * Um, no... not even close. It's not "super-strict" in the slightest, and you absolutely could not make that case for any fiction-based article. I'm not sure how anyone who had actually read our policies could make such a bizarre argument. DreamGuy (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a book is written on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks like a great "Further reading" link to add to MacGyver. It can substitute all the indiscriminate plot detail gathered here.  We could write at the "MacGyverisms" section, "In 2005, a book called The Unofficial MacGyver How-to Handbook was published, detailing the show's MacGyverisms." — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one way of looking at it, but I think Peregrine Fisher means it should be used as a reference for the article that is up for duscussion. - Mgm|(talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect MacGyver solved a lot of problems, but there not all notable and plus Wikipedia is not a fan site of anybody, I mean Robert Horry has hit a lot of game-winning shots, but you don't see an article called "List of Robert Horry's game-winning shots", do you? No, because they have been merged into his article, so what I say we do is merge Macgyver's problems into his article. Hairy  Perry  16:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to MacGyver. The content is verifiable but as for notability, on its own I can't see this as more then WP:FANCRUFT, but it is quite viable as part of the parent article of the show that it belongs to.  --Pmedema (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — an indiscriminate collection of information. I also note likely canvassing/meatpuppetry, not to mention every every possible argument to avoid in deletion discussion used, in every above keep reason. MuZemike  ( talk ) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Raitchison. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, the WP:NOT people have won me over. We should redirect to MacGyver. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The centrality of the topic to the show is enough to argue for keeping, but the easily proven fact that MacGyver's MacGyverism's have been the object of significant "real-world" reliable source interest, (mentioned already in the article) - Mythbuster's, the book mentioned by Peregrine Fisher "The Unofficial MacGyver How-to Handbook", along with What Would MacGyver Do? which has refs to some of the show's problem solving, makes this a clear keep by wikipedia's general notability guideline.John Z (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not in the slightest bit indiscriminate, or fancruft.  The unusual problems and Macgyver's unique approach to solving them are basically the most notable part of the series.  JulesH (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - found this AfD as monitoring AfD's for lists, so no axe to grind. IMHO WP:FAN WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:ENC WP:NOT WP:PLOT all point the clear way to deletion, notwithstanding the clear desires of a vocal fanbase.  Springnuts (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear not all of those who believe the article should not be deleted are fans of the show in any way, personally I find the show unwatchable. However the resourcefulness demonstrated by MacGyver in the show transcends the show and as I have already mentioned has become a part of the fabric of society. The article is most definitely not Fancruft as per the very first sentence of WP:FAN and is also pretty clearly notable in general.  Raitchison (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - yes fully accepted that not all those voting 'keep' are fans of the show. Springnuts (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment One of the first things mentioned in WP:ATA which has been referred to as an argument for deletion without any specific reasoning behind their view is "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". I would like those doing so to please see WP:BASH and keep in mind that deletionism is not the only way to go.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.21.253 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and not devolve this into a inclusionist/deletionist shitfest shoutfest. We just got over a presidential election, already! MuZemike  ( talk ) 05:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is more than plot summaries, as it focusses on the science and technology used in the solutions to seemingly insurmountable challenges in each episode. The principles of science and technology covered in this series and this article are actually quite important outside the McGyver series, in the real world. A plot summary would pay more attention to motivations or the fate of the characters, which is pretty much ignored in this article. Since they are sourced to the episode, they are not original research.   The point of the article is not to show that the McGyver character is clever, it is to cover the technology and science, and  presentation of science and technology has been encyclopedic since the time of Diderot or the first edition of Britannica. It would benefit from Wikilinking to articles covering the scientific or technolological bases of the gimmicks. It is a useful navigational aid to help the reader find episodes of this notable series, and to relate episodes to the scientific principles involved.(Note: I have argued far more often for deleting than for keeping articles). Edison (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That means the article is backwards according to WP:PLOT. This article gives fictional context to the real world when it should be giving real world context to the work of fiction. Jay32183 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is already hosted at Wikia where it belongs. http://macgyver.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_problems_solved_by_MacGyver -JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia is also hosted somewhere else. Why does it matter if a specialized wiki has some similar information? -- Explodicle (T/C) 11:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case it matters because this content clearly does WP:NOT belong here. The incessant trivia nightmare on Wikipedia needs to stop. JBsupreme (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To which item on WP:NOT are you referring? -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters, WP:NOT a fan site, nor is it a place to regurgitate a long list of indiscriminate trivia ad nauseum. See the eloquent commentary from Erik below.  Thanks!  JBsupreme (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources, including the two books already mentioned above. Meets all content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). Claims of violating WP:NOT are based on personal opinions about being "indiscriminate", rather than on what the policy actually says. As WP:PLOT says, the "plot summary" here is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of the fictional work. And the reliable sources mentioned in this discussion alone already provide enough real-world context and information to justify plot details in this article. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article solely consists of plot detail. It is completely indiscriminate in how it goes on and on about the events throughout this TV series and provides no real-world context.  A "summary" would be identifying maybe a half dozen examples overall, and that would fit well in MacGyver.  That does not excuse one to have an entire article, 70 kb in length, with nothing but plot detail from the TV series.  We don't list every punchline from comedy sitcoms, we don't list every romance from soap operas, we don't list every technique used in a criminal investigation show, and so on.  There should be select examples to reflect to readers the concept of MacGyverisms in summary fashion, but having an article with every single in-universe detail related to this topic is unencyclopedic. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 04:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:N. As explained above, most of the material clearly consists of fancruft. If we really were to keep to relevant material in this article, it probably wouldn't be longer than a few sentences. Thus it seems that whatever notable information exists in there, it can be merged/included in the Angus MacGyver article. --m3taphysical (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Feel that the article is relevant and valuable both in relation to the show MacGyver and in allowing users to gain an insight into what MacGyver is/does. AlbertSimon (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As said above, gives a clear idea of MacGyver's skills, which may not be fully understood without this article. --Fathermocker (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Delete. Fails WP:PLOT and probably some WP:OR issues. It reminds me a bit of Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination) and the interesting Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination). There is a strong point here that there is a book about MacGyer's skills. Well, i think this prove that MacGyer is notable and its skills are notable but this doesn't imply we need a full list if the skills. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per clear consensus in first discussion. WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN are not legitimate reasons for deletion.  Nominating for a third time is disruptive and pointy.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First discussion was in December 2006, quite a long time ago, and resulted in keep. Second discussion was in December 2007 and resulted in no consensus.  Citing the earliest consensus while ignoring the previous one is misleading.  Third time nomination is not disruptive; the ability to revisit consensus is built into the process.  Disruption is nominating an article a month after the previous AFD.  The last one was 11 months ago.  Also, arguments for deletion have not solely been calling it fancruft; they have been more substantial than that or saying "just not notable".  The article has too much indiscriminate plot detail where a limited selection in an article's section would adequately tell the reader what a MacGyverism may be. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A no consensus is a default to keep, which is why the article is still around. After two discussions have not closed as delete or merge or redirect, efforts should instead be made on improving the article in question and not just renominating it continuously until it gets deleted.  The article is clearly discriminate.  It cover a specific topic "problems" solved by a specific individual "MacGyver".  Thus, it has two discriminating parameters for inclusion and because MacGyver is a notable show that has even been parodied on SNL and Family Guy with parodies focusing on the problem solving and his problem solving is arguably the most memorable aspect of that show, we can verify the items on this list.  If you think a limited selection in a main article would be okay, then I see no reason why not to at worst merge and redirect there without deletinon.  The nomination is pointed considering that it seems consistent with some kind of mission.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody disputes the existence of the TV series, the main character, and his common trait. This does not mean that there should be an entire article of every instance of his common trait.  Plot detail needs to support real-world context, not the other way around, and the way the article is set up, there's no intended summary.  Its full intention is to list as much plot detail about MacGyverisms as possible.  If there was so-called "narrative complexity" that ties some elements together, that could be an argument.  Each instance is as separate as they come.  Attacking the nominator seems like a failure to assume good faith, too... we all have our missions, I'm sure, but since the nomination, multiple substantial viewpoints have weighed in, so it shows a credible discussion plenty of time after the previous AfD. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One does not have to assume when the nominator outright laughs at those arguing to keep. I do not see problem with listing things just as a list of Academy Award winners, table of the elements, etc. are supplements to the text of the main articles.  This article I see serving two purposes.  First, it is a spinoff or sub-article of the main article and provides those who want more detailed knowledge about the subject with a more extensive list of examples.  Kind of like how the published Britannica have the Micropedias with the overviews, but the Macropedia books with the much more detailed coverage.  Second, the article serves as a table of contents of sorts because it lists different problems solved that were solved in different episodes and thus can lead us to which episode each thing was solved.  On another note, the article was viewed 42,000+ times last month alone.  So, obviously a good deal of our readers come here looking for this kind of information and these readers become editors and donors.  Because we can see that the article is not just total nonsense, there is no problem or libel or anything that I aware of, I would much rather allow such a large number of readers and editors to use this information for whatever they can than go with the handful that think it should be deleted as non-notable (which is subjective as it is obviously notable from the many keeps above and the readership and that is verifiable in published sources as well as the primary sources and because it has been parodied on multiple notable shows), as cruft (not a policy or guideline), as violating plot (which based on the talk page is also disputed), or as indiscriminate (as indicated in my earlier reply I think it has a clear criteria for inclusion that prevents the article from being infinite in coverage).  Again, I judge these articles on what Wikipedia stands to gain or lose.  If we keep this verifiable content, maybe we gain readers.  Maybe we enhance our comprehensive nature.  I see at least potential for positives.  If we remove it, maybe we insult those who worked on it by using subjective claims of it's cruft or it's not notable that are not really rooted in policy as we failed to reach a consensus on fictional notability.  If we remove it, it is not as if those who worked on it are suddenly going to decide to work on whatever articles those arguing to delete would rather they work on.  So, I am just not seeing any benefit for our readership by not covering this article or again not at worst merging and redirecting without deletion so that we do at least have the foundation laid for when additional sources come along we do not have to just start over.  Thus, by contrast I see more benefits than not.  Anyway, absolutely no assertion of non-notability whatsoever.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete – pure excessive plot summary. Fails WP:NOT and WP:NOTE for absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:21, 25 November 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.