Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati)


 * 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. Clear consensus and reasons to keep ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

unsourced fictional character bio that was appropriately redirected and has been inappropriately restored, twice. Jack Merridew 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A major character in an ensemble cast on a major program that was summarily redirected without notice or discussion. The same considerations that resulted in a "Keep" for the Bailey Quarters article applies with equal force here. Let some editors take the time to add references. Fladrif (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and then create a redirect to the WKRP in Cincinnati article where there is an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. - Josette (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? If so, weighing in on these discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again.Fladrif (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC )
 * Delete fictional character with no independent notability of its own. Then redirect to to WKRP.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems plausible to write a good article on Venus Flytrap. From what I can tell from the Amazon.com preview, this book seems to have a lot of information. An article like this could also be helpful; it provides some information on the character's development. This seems potentially useful, though I can only read that preview. I do think it's a little weird that we can have articles on Parks and Recreation characters, but not WKRP characters. If WKRP had debuted in the IGN/AV Club era, this would be a no-brainer keep. Zagalejo^^^ 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Entirely unsourced attempt at literary criticism. While the topic might be notable, it's better to rewrite the article from secondary sources rather than keep some random Wikipedian's essay around forever in the hope it is "entirely rewritten". Pcap ping  09:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unreferenced and just a WP:PLOT recount. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep due to improvements. Article is no longer unreferenced or only plot, but rather contains sourced information on development and reception from newspapers as indicated above concerning this notable character from a memorable show watched by millions and I hope/expect anyone who said it was unsourced will update their comments accordingly.  There are literally hundreds of other reliable sources that can be used to develop this article concerning a clearly notable character who has indeed significance due to the depiction of African-American in popular culture in a time when as the actor himself acknowledges few such depictions existed.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment —You're right, Tim Reid is African-American, as was the character he portrayed in this dumb show. You seem to have uncovered our racist agenda here. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dumb show" is not a reason for deletion. I am familiar and have seen this notable show, but did not personally get into it.  That does not mean I cannot nevertheless acknowledge that it was important for many others.  As for as your other comment, we have seen what you think of non-Balinese.  --A NobodyMy talk 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'll stipulate to being white, or bulé (or bulai). The diff you offer is my first post to Bali ultimate (who I believe to also be white) where I offered him an image of an Ogoh-ogoh-girl — a caricature of the many white female tourists the local Bali boys, and others ;), meet. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What does any of that have to do with Venus Flytrap from WKRP in Cincinnati? --A NobodyMy talk 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in reference to your calling Bali ultimate a racist on the occult AfD, and alluding to that here by bringing up Tim Reid's race and implying that I'm a Balinese who is racist re bulé. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that Venus Flytrap is "character who has indeed significance due to the depiction of African-American in popular culture in a time when as the actor himself acknowledges few such depictions existed" says absolutely nothing about the intention of the nominator concerning the character's race. Rather, it indicates that because of the character's race, part of the available sources discussing the character's development and reception emphasize that aspect of the character, i.e. the character is notable due to its relevance in racial depictions in popular culture, which seems irrefutable.  --A NobodyMy talk 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * …and you implied that I'm racist regarding non-Balinese. Are you standing by that personal attack? Curious, Jack Merridew 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, it is time to be the bigger man and not take this WP:BAIT any further. I should not have relapsed today and should go back to following WP:DENY.  I am here to improve articles and discuss articles, not play games.  I encourage you to do the same.  --A NobodyMy talk 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you standing by that personal attack? BAIT refers to disturbed editors, which is also a personal attack. Curious, Jack Merridew 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * …which amounts to you calling me a troll, as that's what DENY is referring to. Full disclosure: I consider you a troll, and you probably have a diff of me having done so. I've certainly used DENY that way, myself, so this is just more of your parroting statements by others about yourself back at them. See your RFC/U, where this was all covered. Glad to hear you're a "Bigger man", potential girlfriends will appreciate that. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep major and sourcable character in a notable series, who has received coverage in reliable sources . No need to redirect, when the article can be trimmed some and improved. Surmountable issues are not a cause for deletion just because someone ELSE has not yet done the required work.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: All of the major characters are already covered in depth in the WKRP in Cincinnati article and in the respective articles on the actors. How much more information do we need on these rather, let's face it, trivial characters from the past, and why would we need this information in more than one location? - Josette (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Josette… you may think the one brief paragraph at WKRP in Cincinnati about Venus is "in depth", but I and many others do not. While certainly the current Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati) might benefit from some trimming, its total elimination is not the best answer, when it can so easily be improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Michael… ;) I think she meant sufficient depth — my view, at least. All these fictional character articles are just plot-churn and obsessiveness. No depth is sufficient to satisfy that urge. Fans are, after all, fanatic. I'll not bother pasting this to the other three WKRP AfDs Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack, I appreciate your taking the time to respond. In my comment above, I can only respond to what she wrote and not by what she might or might not have intended. One brief paragraph does not do justice to major characters in a major notable series, and I do not agree with her that the major characters in a major notable series are trivial. Her question as to why should these exist in more than one place is easily addressed by the fact that that the other locations where these characters are mentioned do so in a very trivial manner, and to expand those elsewhere trivial mentions would overburden and unbalance those other articles. These nicely meet WP:SPINOUT and improve the encyclopedia for those readers who might expect to find such information. Her personal opinion about them being trivial characters from the past, is just that... an opinion. Notability is not temporary, and relegating these to a redirect to an article where they would have only be a brief footnote, does not improve the project nor a reader's understanding of the topic. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael… we will have to agree to disagree ;) - Josette (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael… see Jo's initial post, where she referred to the coverage in the show's article as an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. This is not a major notable series, it is a notably dumb series and a rather minor series on the whole spectrum of TV shows ever produced. The level of coverage of all elements should follow from that. ;) - Jack Merridew 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The arguments being made here and in the other related AFD's in support of deletion are based on faulty premises. Problems with adding sources and revising tone, content and organization can be fixed; the articles can certainly be improved, a couple of different editors have taken a shot at them. Those are not reasons for deletion, merger or redirection. Notability of these principal characters as elements of a work of fiction, is clearly established by the extensive secondary coverage of them in multiple reliable sources, per Notability_(fiction). Arguments directed to editors' personal opinion as to the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of the series or any of the characters are utterly irrelevant. The extensive availabilty of reliable secondary sourcing on what are objectively iconic characters in a long-running award-winning series evidence to the contrary.Fladrif (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This should not even be under consideration. This exercise is a waste of time. I'm biting my tongue to remain civil. Trackinfo (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good for you. wp:Civil is a policy. ;) Jack Merridew 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The problem with today's youth is that they spend too much time on Wikipedia and not enough time watching classic 1970s sitcoms. We are literally losing our TV heritage. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Bailey Quarters AfD, regarding another character from this series, closed on Feb 2 as a very clear keep, the nomination having received only one !vote beyond the nominator.  I see no explanation why this AfD of a similar character from the same series, by the same nominator, would be treated any differently.  The nomination simply says "unsourced fictional character bio"; that doesn't claim the character isn't notable.  At Articles for deletion/Blackout! (Ugly Betty), I recently became aware just how extensively wikipedia covers TV series/episodes/and characters.  Every single episode of Ugly Betty, for example, has a lengthy article, and every primary character has an article.  Character pages are not uncommon for popular TV shows (e.g., Beverly Hills, 90210), though sometimes these are combined into long articles that address all the characters in a series.  So, coverage of the "Venus Flytrap" character is definitely appropriate under long precedent, and where it gets covered is an organizational question that can be discussed elsewhere.--Milowent (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd point out that the RFA referenced in the Blackout (Ugly Betty) AFD resulted in sanctions against TTN, the editor who had summarily redirected all the WKRP character articles at issue here in Sept-Oct 2009 without notice or discussion (as well as hundreds of other articles).Fladrif (talk)
 * Keep - He's notable, so that's good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 12 February 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.