Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil (Dilbert)


 * 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   redirect to List of Dilbert characters. Content merge may be performed at editorial discretion. Regards   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Phil (Dilbert)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There don't appear to be adequate reliable, third-party sources focusing on this subject, and therefore it seems to fail the general notability guideline. *** Crotalus *** 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep --at-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 15:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Dilbert characters, unless someone comes up with sources who aren't Scott Adams. cab (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Reyk  YO!  05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Agree with the above. It has some notability but not good enough for its own article. Yankeefan233 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a citation to the The Encyclopedia of Hell which demonstrates notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How long is the information there? (I can't see the book myself; I suppose Google Books imposes some geographical restriction.) cab (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It consists of one paragraph. *** Crotalus *** 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. Etrigan (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * the as above said "...unless someone comes up with sources who aren't Scott Adams". This has been done - I have added three sources that are not Scott Adams - and so the redirect !votes are obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would change my opinion if I could see that the coverage were actually non-trivial (one of the primary requirements of WP:N). For each source cited, are we talking about a throwaway mention in a laundry-list sentence, a paragraph, a page, several pages? Google Books won't allow me to access any of those sources (due to the fact that I am not in the US?) so I cannot judge this for myself. Thanks, cab (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Merge" to Dilbert. Not every comic strip character gets an article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect for lack of significant coverage that would WP:verify notability. Some minor improvement make a merge appropriate but not a stand alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the multiple independent reliable sources added to the article. Edward321 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to List of Dilbert characters. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC) - based on addition of new sources since initation of AfD
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - character is already adequately covered in the character list article and the article title is not a plausible search term. There is nothing to merge or redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- sources added demonstrate reasonable notability. A merge isn't unreasonable, but thats the sort of discussion better left to an article talk page, not an AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they really don't. They are a couple of sentences in several hundred page books. Per WP:N these are exactly the sort of mentions that are by definition trivial and do not establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my opinion they do. The fact the character has gotten a "couple of sentences" in multiple reliable sources is enough that there's some notability. Full article? Possibly not. But enough, quite frankly, that deletion is not the right course of action. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, trivial mentions are specifically noted at WP:GNG as not establishing notability. Notability is conferred by multiple independent sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. No such sources exist for Phil. The Encyclopedia of Hell contains four sentences out of 320 pages. The Door is snippet view only but looks to contain about five sentences across twelve issues of the magazine. Alt culture is also snippet view and I can't even confirm that Phil is mentioned at all in this 297 page book. So we're talking about maybe ten sentences culled from something like a thousand pages of text. This is the very definition of "trivial coverage". No one is suggesting that Phil not be covered, as he already is, in the Dilbert character list. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the guideline WP:N indicates that a one sentence, tangential mention is trivial. The Encyclopedia of Hell entry is a direct encyclopedic reference which is more substantial than that.  It is very common for encyclopedia to cover topics briefly and we have no minimum size requirement here either.  We are not paid by the word and brevity is often considered a sign of good writing. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The notion that four sentences out of a 320 page book constitutes "significant coverage" is patently absurd. It is not "substantial". It is not "significant". It is barely "coverage". This would be a great source to verify details but not to establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not provide any evidence to support your claim, just hand-waving assertion. Here is a counter-example, arrived at by a quick random search.  The entry for the Great Glen in the Encyclopædia Britannica is just three sentences, "(Gaelic“Great Valley”) valley in the Highland council area of north-central Scotland, extending about 60 miles (97 km) from the Moray Firth at Inverness to Loch Linnhe at Fort William. It includes Lochs Ness, Oich, and Lochy. The Caledonian Canal runs through the valley.".  An encyclopedic entry of this size is quite common and is ample to demonstrate notability.  Notice that our equivalent article has no sources at all.  Phil is doing quite well by comparison. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And you've provided "evidence" that your claim is something other than "hand-waving assertion"? I submit that of the examples offered at WP:N this breif mention of Phil is much more like the example of trivia than it is the examples of established notability. The idea that WP:N limits the definition of "trivial mention" to single-sentence mentions is just stupid.
 * If the EB entry were the only coverage of any length about Great Glen I would say that it falls in the same category as the EofH mention of Phil. Since there are plenty of other reliable sources that cover Great Glen in detail and none that cover Phil, the two are not analogous and the comparison is disingenuous. The standard is not "I found some brief mention in a large reference book". The standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A four-sentence mention in a 300+ page book is not significant coverage and staking a claim to notability on it is base extreme inclusionism. Not everything that exists in fact or fiction is notable no matter how much one might wish it so.
 * Imagine how wonderful the Great Glen article's sourcing might be if everyone who wasted copious amounts of time defending nonsense articles like this one to the death instead devoted that same energy to improving articles of actual encyclopedic merit. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles like Quagmire's Dad? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, articles exactly like Quagmire's Dad, with its abundance of independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the episode. If Phil had references even half as sterling as this Family Guy episode does then I would gladly support its continued existence. Instead, he has a sad handful of passing mentions scattered across a thousand pages and a fierce advocate of all things fictional pretending that these constitute significant coverage. People who live in glass outhouses shouldn't talk shit. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quagamire's Dad is based on sources like Fox Flash, which is explicitly publicity; Yahoo TV, which looks weak; and IMDB, which is an open site like Wikipedia. These do not seem to be sterling sources and your judgement of Phil seems similarly defective. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fox Flash is used to source the date of broadcast only. Yahoo TV is sourcing the episode's cast and crew. IMDB is redundant and has been removed.
 * The article's notability is clearly established by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including but not limited to The Dallas Voice, The Advocate and AfterElton.com. It is supported by reviews in sources that are widely accepted throughout Wikipedia as reliable. It has drawn the attention of the most significant LGBT media watchdog group in the US. Your characterization of the article's sourcing is fundamentally dishonest and your dishonesty saddens me. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect per all above. Already covered in another article, and the references provided aren't quite enough for a separate one as the coverage isn't really significant. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2010 (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.