Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Harper (2nd 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.

The result was   Merge some. Keep Thelma and Eunice, and merge the rest to List of Mama's Family characters v/r - TP 01:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thelma Harper
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No out-of-universe notability or sources. Every single sentence is in-universe plot summary and/or informal tone ("The milquetoast finally grew a spine."). Redirects undone with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but I see no point in "fixing" as the articles are beyond repair and utterly lacking in real-world notability. Previous AFD closed in 2007 as "keep", but articles have been completely static ever since. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all. No indication of notability outside of in-universe material. Lengthy plot-ish details and POV garbage do not make encyclopedia articles. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I contacted everyone who participated in the past AFD to inform them of this sequel.  D r e a m Focus  21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Thelma Harper. The character was on two different television shows, popular enough on the The Carol Burnett Show to be the main character of a new show that lasted 6 seasons.  Character was also used on Hollywood Squares and Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? as well as elsewhere.  After all these years, the character is still seen.   D r e a m Focus  21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Keep Eunice Harper Higgins, as sources have now been found. The rest can be merged to a character list article.   D r e a m Focus  01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Articles consist purely of plot summaries. No sources provided to indicate real world notability. Jay32183 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thelma Harper has now has the sources to avoid deletion. The rest do not. Jay32183 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.   D r e a m Focus  22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   D r e a m Focus  22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to a List of Mama's Family characters, which does not currently appear to exist, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging several non-notable items to a list does not make them notable, nor does it take care of the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Every single notable series, television, game, or otherwise, has a character list page. You always make the same argument to try to delete these pages or as many entries on them as possible. List articles do not need to meet the same requirements as regular articles do.  D r e a m Focus  00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, and I'm playing the ignore all rules card. I'm working off of existing precedent (separation of characters into separate articles from notable series (Mama's Family in this case)) and standing by my commentary from about five years ago in the previous AFD discussion.  I am not opposed to merging into a central article as per commentary by user:Jclemens.  The simple fact that the articles have not changed in the past five years, beyond marginal changes, may just owe itself to the fact that the series has not been running for nearly thirty years outside of reruns - and therefore, no further character development has occurred.  Also add to the fact that notability does not disappear.  I cite IAR, though, because of the age of the series: it may be difficult, at best, to find citations about these individuals, owing to that detail. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're claiming notability, where are the sources? Jay32183 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge all into List of Mama's Family characters, do not keep as stand-alone articles in their present states. These characters may or may not be notable for individual articles, but the fact is, no-one bothered to improve the articles to pass WP:NOT over the last five years. If someone wants to work on the Mama's Family characters, fine, he may do so on the character list; if not, then at least these extremely poor stand-alone articles are out of sight and do not encourage the creation of other poor character articles. Win-win. – sgeureka t•c 07:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Either Delete or Merge all per above. I initiated the first AfD for all these pages a few years ago, and my feelings are still the same--despite my being a huge fan of the show, these characters simply don't have enough real-world notability (if any at all) to merit their own pages, and the lack of any improvement on any of them since then attests to that.  As I stated in the previous AfD, I'd possibly support Thelma Harper having her own page, since she is somewhat notable outside the show (in Vicki Lawrence's Two-Woman Show and her appearances on Hollywood Squares, for instance), but none of the others are notable enough.  Yes, the show is popular and noteworthy, but that by itself does not automatically establish notability for its individual characters. -- Crazy  Legs  KC  22:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Keep Thelma, and I'm sure Ten Pound Hammer did nothing on the rest to confirm they weren't notable, but they'll get recreated anyway when no one's looking.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - That whooshing sound you just heard was the assumption of good faith flying out the window. Any that are "recreated when no one's looking" will be speedied in full view. (Incidentally, you didn't give a reason to keep Thelma.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * TPH does good work around here no question, but he doesn't always do a good WP:BEFORE. I've been around long enough to know that.  Articles like this do get recreated (not by me) and not caught, I don't know how it happens but it does.  Probably because around 900 articles survive creation every day.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on your assumption about TPH in this instance, you've just agreed with the deletion of all of them except Thelma Harper -- I think, it's hard to tell without any reasoning given. (Yeah, people might recreate them. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, unless you're arguing for salt now...) You still haven't provided a reason for your Keep on Thelma Harper (or the others, if you're !voting Keep on them too). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I have no view on the characters other than Thelma Harper because I have not done the research required to determine which of the other characters in the show are notable. This show, though a commercial success, was a piece of crap in my personal opinion so I don't feel like engaging in that endeavor.  Editors like AlbertGray who worked on these articles over five years ago have departed wikipedia, likely never to return as our editor core continues to shrink.  As for Thelma, she should be kept she meets WP:GNG.  To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, who loved questionable pop culture, anyone who doesn't know Thelma Harper "is a heathen."--Milowent • hasspoken  16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thelma Harper is 100% unsourced. Given that the GNG requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would be downright amazing if it passed the GNG in its present form. Please astound me by explaining. As Lincoln observed, what we call something does not change what it is. Thelma Harper is an unreferenced plot summary that fails every notability guideline that I can think of, other than WP:ILIKEIT. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD is not for cleanup. Under your rationale, you would delete extremely notable articles that are just shitty in their current form, and we have tons of those.  You put in an hour improving the article first, and then so will I.  Otherwise, just stop it, heathen.--Milowent • hasspoken  11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: I don't expect the article to be cleaned up, I expect it will be deleted. That's exactly what AfD is for. I expect it to be deleted because there was no evidence of real-world notability in the article and I was unable to locate any. As I do not believe there is any such notability to be found, the onus is on anyone who claims there is such notability to support it with reliable sources. Finally, I prefer the less POV "atheist". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you couldn't find sources for Thelma, you should quit wikipedia, you are harming the project.--Milowent • has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 16:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read "evidence of real-world notability" as "sources" you should get your eyes checked. Let me re-word that for you: "significant coverage in independent reliable sources." Yeah, I see the "sources". Trimming the article down to material supported by them, we get "Mama Thelma Harper, a cynical stereotypical geezer, was Vicki Lawrence's most popular character.", followed by all four sources. Then, it's on with the in-universe plot summary. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I believe the burden of proof for notability rests on those who feel a subject is notable, not those who think it is not. If someone can establish notability for these characters by showing that they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (ie, sources other than the show itself), then by all means they may stay. If not, than per policy, they should be either deleted or merged. -- Crazy  Legs  KC  14:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hammer's rationale. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for Thelma harper. For the others, Delete, oppose a merge if the information doesn't get sourced at all.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, though probably as a merged article. The information about their role in the show is taken as it should be from the work itself, the preferred source for such material. As significant characters in a   major show, they should get some sort of coverage--though how mucv\h  is something that is much harder to decide. A delete nomination or !vote here is saying the should not get mentioned at all, which has no basis in policy. And if the are mentioned, they need at least a redirect. Abd they do not all have the same importance, so the group nomination is improper.  DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - A delete !vote does not say they should not be mentioned. We mention a whole lot of ideas, people, places and things that do not have their own articles. The show is a primary source which we approach with caution. Existence in the show is a given, but provides no evidence of notability, which is the issue here. For example, Rosebud is obviously in Citizen Kane and is discussed in the article (with far better sources than those recently added to Thelma Harper, BTW). We do not, however, have an article on it. In fact, we have only one article on any character, object, location or idea from Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane. While it needs better sourcing, that article contains far more than the in-universe biographies present in the articles we're discussing here. We have sources speculating Kane was a stand-in for Hearst. We have others arguing Kane contained elements of Welles. We have sources discussing comparisons to Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner. Oh, yeah, and a biography of Kane too, which could stand to be trimmed, taken out-of-universe and given some cited depth. Yes, Charles Foster Kane needs work, but compare it the Thelma Harper, the "best" of this batch. (If you feel the group nomination is out of order, you'll need to provide some reason they shouldn't all share the same fate, something along the lines of, "Thelma Harper is an unsourced, in-universe, plot-ish biography and should be deleted. Alberta Meechum provides meaningful coverage of one of central characters of the 20th century and is well-sourced to peer reviewed journals and should be kept.") -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Thelma. She appeared on multiple TV shows over four decades. Per Dream and Milo. CallawayRox (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, she did. That is not the point. We need significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish real world notability for the character independent of the show. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One hour, Summer, come on, it won't kill you. I promise. :-) --Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your flat assertion of "is too notable..." is not enough to have me doubt what my research has already proven to me. Showing that there is significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrating notability independent of the in-universe garbage is your job now. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not my job, its everyone's job. The character of Thelma Harper is notable; if it gets deleted, the world is worse off.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  00:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: It is your job if you believe there is such coverage as no one else seems to have found the coverage you seem to believe exists. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its everyone's job. Everyone who cares about knowledge, that is.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  03:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Eunice Harper Higgins. I'm curious what search strategies editors have been using to research notability of these subjects, as I discovered with very little effort using Google three good book sources that discuss this character in detail, not just passing mentions. I added those citations, but others (who have access to the text through Google preview) may want to expand the article further, as I added only a little of what is available. I also cited a newspaper article from The Boston Globe, found offline, which discusses the character in detail. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: There's also a full article in The New York Times. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, no one is looking. There are no search strategies.  Its a hunger lust for deletion.  Eunice is notable too, no doubt, but I have only looked at Thelma, adding 11 references to it already, though I could probably add 100 non-duplicate sources.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  04:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * People seeking deletion do not need to show there are no sources. People wanting to add, keep, or restore must show that sources are available and include them. The sources you found are meaningless if you do not add them to the article. Jay32183 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "People seeking deletion do not need to show there are no sources." They need to unless they just like to delete things and destroy knowledge.  If you bring an AfD and don't do any work to see if the subject is notable, you should be banned from wikipedia for life, imho.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  06:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you don't understand how Wikipedia works. What I stated is official Wikipedia policy. The burden of evidence falls to inclusion. That's what sources are for. There are so many policies and guidelines saying sources must be provided; How can you complain that people are pointing out that this fails those policies and guidelines? Sources are required for content to appear on Wikipedia. If you want the content get the sources. Jay32183 (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE - if you don't follow it, you don't deserve to be an editor on wikipedia.  You're twisting policy to advocate for the deletion of notable subject articles.  AfD is not a tool to get people who actually do shit around here to do things at your bidding.   As I noted above, if you didn't know Thelma Harper was notable, you're a heathen.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  03:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Milowent, I have to say good job sourcing Thelma's article so far, but can we please refrain from swearing and name-calling? That's not the way to get people to see your perspective. The citations you've added have convinced me that Thelma probably should be kept, but you haven't yet defended any of the rest--do you think they are some or all of them are notable and worthy of keeping, or do you agree that most of them probably should be deleted/merged? -- Crazy  Legs  KC  03:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But name calling and swearing is FUN, grandma!!! Especially when they are wro.... OW OW OW MY EAR THAT HURTS.  harummphh.  Ahh, I haven't looked at any of the rest and frankly don't have time to.  I chose Thelma because I knew she was notable.  I see someone else tackled Eunice.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  17:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Thelma, Merge the rest. Thelma is a character definitely notable for more than just a single show, with decades of appearances, a book (Mama for President: Good Lord, Why Not?), etc.  Merging the rest would be more in line with out other TV character coverage though. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As nominator, I say that the Thelma Harper article has been improved enough to avoid deletion. The rest, however, I still think should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Eunice and Thelma (obvious keeps). I'd also suggest keeping Ed if there was more to the article, but for now it should be merged with the rest (Per WP:SS). And speaking of which: Merge the rest to List of Mama's Family characters. But actually do the merge, and don't just redirect and forget. - jc37 01:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also withdrawing Eunice, which I didn't notice had been improved. The rest still stand. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "improved" shouldn't matter. This is a wiki. - jc37 06:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Eunice per improvement by Paul. CallawayRox (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. There's nothing in these secondary character articles that isn't already in the main article. Oh, and there's the notability factor.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Thelma and Eunice, Redirect the rest. The nominator was quite reasonable to redirect these in the first place... the characters (with a couple of exceptions) are clearly not notable enough for standalone articles, but redirects preserve the edit history and these are reasonable search terms for the show. 28bytes (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why Vint Harper is not on this list? Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Overlooked it. He's there now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oh oh, seven more days now! just kidding.  i think we have best consensus we are going to get.  Keep Thelma and Eunice, redirect/merge the rest into a list.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  02:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I hadn't thought of Eunice as notable before, but I now see that she is. However, I don't know if a separate character list is really necessary--the main article already includes a character/actor list with a brief description of each, which I think is enough. I really don't see any need to go into longer "biographies" for each of the characters, if there's no real-world commentary to complement it. So my vote would go to just redirecting them all (except Thelma and Eunice) back to the main show article. Thoughts from anyone else? -- Crazy  Legs  KC  04:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Thelma and Eunice, Redirect all others to Mama's Family. My first choice would be for all characters to be merged into List of.... However, a reasonable case has be made that the Lawrence/Burnett characters have sufficient durability as proven in RS to keep. The rest of this drek is merely excessive detail and clear OR. Someone had to watch much of this stuff to get all the detail included. Ick. As opposed to merging excessive detail, and since main page has a perfectly adequate character list, redirect. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2012 (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.