Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wally (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. Liz Read! Talk! 14:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wally (Dilbert)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No reliable references found discussing this character in any significant detail independent of his source, seeming to support the conclusion that he is not culturally relevant, and not a notable subject separate from the comic strip of his origin. All sources currently featured on this page are primary sources (e.g., the official Dilbert comic and its website) and from my search, I doubt there are more sources to find beyond trivial mentions and listicles. I therefore propose redirecting and merging any information of interest to List of Dilbert characters. Joyce-stick (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they (supporting characters from the same comic strip) also appear to lack significant coverage from secondary sources:


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - see comments below. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Keep. I'm not a fan of bundled nominations. I came here expecting to vote delete, but all four subjects get far more results in Wikipedia library searches than I expected, although undoubtedly many of them are trivial and passing mentions that would not contribute to GNG. "Dogbert" returns over 1,600 results, including:
 * Beresford DR. The need for accounting standards: wisdom from the world of Dogbert. The CPA Journal. 1998;v68(n1)
 * Lyttle, Jim. Journal of General Psychology. The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasion: The Case of Business Ethics Training. 00221309, Apr2001, Vol. 128, Issue 2;  DOI: 10.1080/00221300109598908
 * Both Everyman and Other: "Dilbert" as an Exemplar of Newspaper Comics' Simultaneous Identification and Distance. By: Davis, Julie A., International Journal of Comic Art, 15316793, Fall 2009, Vol. 11, Issue 2

which are three instances that look like they probably contribute to the subject meeting GNG. My keep is based on a skim of what look like the most relevant search results. Please ping me if evidence that might change my mind is uncovered. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbert asked Dogbert whether investors wouldn't become suspicious when Dogbert reported his operating results, which would simply show Dogbert raking off all the cash for his personal benefit. Dogbert replied, "of course not" since he would show that his results were comparable to returns earned by the S&P 500 assuming that an unscrupulous dog managed those companies. That entertaining example helps explain why our society has developed so many standard measures of performance, whether they are for baseball batting averages, mutual fund returns, or financial reporting. If everyone were allowed to determine his or her own measures like Dogbert, we would have chaos. Of course, some would argue that standards generally are a good idea, but in certain circumstances standards can produce more harm than benefit.''
 * Comment. I was able to find copies of the first two of your sources, (the Beresford source, and the Lyttle source), and while these sources may be of interest in showing the relevance of Dilbert the comic strip in general, I do not believe that these sources are significant coverage of Dogbert, the character. Reading these sources, we find firstly that the Beresford source mentions Dogbert most significantly in the following passage:
 * ''If you are a regular reader of Dilbert, you may recall a fairly recent strip where Dogbert, Dilbert's faithful canine companion, was setting up his own mutual fund. Actually, Dogbert was really just stealing investors' money under the guise of an investment vehicle.
 * The Beresford source makes no meaningful commentary on Dogbert himself in this passage, but rather is using a dialogue exchange from the strip that happens to involve him to illustrate a larger, generally unrelated point about accounting standards and economic issues. The source hardly mentions Dogbert after that point, instead veering off to discuss the author's opinion that there is a need for "good accounting standards" in the political context of the time (specifically within the US). As the source is not truly about Dogbert, but simply coincidentally features an example from the strip involving him in the lead to grab the reader's attention, it does not signify in any way that Dogbert is culturally relevant except perhaps to accountants and economists who prefer to explain their position by referencing Dilbert strips.
 * The Lyttle source, meanwhile, is a study on the ostensible effectiveness of cartoons as a viable persuasion tactic, using Dilbert the strip as an example, and also makes no significant or meaningful commentary on Dogbert, the character. He is mentioned passingly in the context of the study several times in this sort of a manner:
 * Therefore, I modified versions of the study materials by introducing or removing cartoon characters (Dilbert and Dogbert) and their wisecracks. Since Dilbert cartoons make fun of management (Johnson, 1997), any use of these cartoons by management should probably be considered self-effacing. Thus, I predicted that the use of...
 * Dogbert is never a significant topic of interest when discussing the results of the study, and while commentary is made on the author's style of humor within the strip, it is not specifically about Dogbert and is only generally applicable to the strip as a whole.
 * I cannot personally verify the third source (the Davis one from the International Journal of Comic Art), as it appears to be a print-only source, but judging by the title and what I have seen from these two similarly named sources, I highly doubt it qualifies as significant coverage of Dogbert. I don't think any of the other three nominated characters would prove distinct in this regard. Joyce-stick (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, . I'll have a deeper look at some of the search results shortly, but your commentaries on those two seem persuasive. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 02:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Davis article has round 120 words about Dogbert on p.183, and about 65 on p.187, together with a couple of further paragraphs discussing Dilbert and Dogbert’s lack of a mouth (pp.187-188), and about 440 words on the Pointy-haired Boss (pp.188-189). It might be one source contributing to GNG for those two, but most of the results are (as anticipated) passing mentions. There are quite a few reviews of Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook, but the ones I saw don't discuss the characters in depth. Changing my vote to delete, accordingly, but still open to having my mind changed. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to User:wallyfromdilbert, who may have an opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to List of Dilbert characters. No evidence of stand-alone notability, all we have is refs to primary sources or plot summaries, usually in passing. I used to love this comic strip, still do, but this is WP:FANCRUFT, not encyclopedic material. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, further WP:BEFORE search regarding Dilbert, the character himself (who I presumed was probably notable given his obvious importance within the comic strip as the main character) yielded similar results. Dilbert's Wikipedia page shares similar problems with all four previously nominated articles, and no reliable sources were found as evidence of standalone notability. The single non-primary source on the page, an interview with the author Scott Adams (which is mislabeled as having come from the New York Times, it seems to in fact be a WP:SPS) is not sufficient in this regard. As such I feel it appropriate to nominate him as well, and have appropriately adjusted this discussion page. Joyce-stick (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joyce-stick I'd ask you to reverse this, since other folks, including me, have commented without realizing you've made the change and our votes and comments do not apply to that page. I'd be happy to participate in a dedicated AfD for that character, but it's too late to bundle him here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. I will wait for the outcome of this AfD before considering starting another on that page. For now, I'll revert my edits nominating the Dilbert character. My apologies as I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and wasn't aware this would pose a problem. Joyce-stick (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I see Delete and Redirect but I was wondering if there was support for the nominator's option of Merging the content. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: no evidence of stand-alone notability and missing proper sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect all to List of Dilbert characters. All of the nominated articles have the same issues - there are no sources indicating that they are independently notable, and none of them have any content worth merging, as it is all just overly detailed plot information sourced entirely to the comic strip itself.  As all of these characters already have sufficiently detailed descriptions in the main character list, a simple Redirect is sufficient for all of them. Rorshacma (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to List of Dilbert characters per nominator and Rorshacma. As none of the characters are independently notable, a redirect for all will suffice. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of the characters are independently notable. Does not meet WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2022 (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.