Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy)

Strong keep
Previous deletion

I am most concerned by this statement: An article on this topic was deleted in 2007-04-17T18:46:45 (after being redirected) when character was named "Giant Chicken".

The deletion is here, according to User:Anthony.bradbury who deleted this redirect, the reason to delete this  page was a "nonsense redirect" not because it was an article. This is the first AfD for this article, it has never been put up for deletion before. Anthony.bradbury deleted the page because it was a #REDIRECT. If you look at this user contributions, he has deleted thousands of these redirects. He probably never even look at the history of the page.

The main reason that User:TheBlazikenMaster and User:Mikeblas voted to delete was because this article was deleted before. A "nonsense redirect" is a full article?

AfD Nomination

Afd states:


 * ''Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template.


 * Question: Nominator, is this page a hopeless case, and if so how does it differ from the other reoccurring character pages?


 * Question: If it is not a hopeless case, why didn't you first try to make this article better and attempt to reach a consensus on the talk page?


 * Question: After these edits to the page since the AfD, is the page no longer a hopeless case?

No Original Research

When the nominator put this article up for deletion, there was no WP:OR, there are no unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories in this page.

There is no research on this page.

This page is simply explaining who the character is, and the episodes he is involved in, similar to all of the other character pages, which have no cited sources, are you suggesting that all television character pages should be deleted because they don't have citations?

If this page is deleted for WP:OR many of the other Family Guy's Recurring characters could be deleted too, including Jonathan Weed, Joe Swanson, Mort Goldman, Tom Tucker, Neil Goldman, Kevin Swanson, Herbert, and Jonathan Weed. They also simply explain who the character is, and what episodes that character is involved in. Not a single one of these articles has a reference or cite.

Notablity

Nominator wrote: Non-notable character.

As per Television episodes:

"It is important to bear this in mind when creating articles, and it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available...While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page."

real-world perspective

Nominator wrote: no out-of-universe content.

Television episodes explains out-of-universe content:


 * This means writing about television programmes from a real-world perspective (ie. discussing the piece as fiction, rather from the perspective of one of the characters, or as if the events had really happened).

When the nominator put this page up for deletion, the first sentence said:
 * Ernie the Giant Chicken is fictional a character. There were no out-of-universe content content in the article. This is incorrect.

Only a Gag

Article details every occurrence of this running gag on Family Guy

This is not simply a gag, but a reoccurring character on Family Guy.

As seen here, there are 2 existing wikipages which have only one more appearance than the Giant Chicken. So have those that voted to delete chosen an arbitrary cut off number? Once the Giant Chicken is on Family Guy again, other wikiusers will be allowed to create this article?

As per NOT: There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

Aside

I am impressed with the nominator's understanding of Wikipedia bureaucracy and rules, I encourage him to use this knowledge to improve articles, not deleting them. It is a pity that I have to waste time away from adding information to wikipedia to defend this article.

I also wrote a note on the family guy page about this AfD. Odessaukrain (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I may change my mind
I may change my mind depending on the response I get at village pump.
 * Notes:


 * Category:Television characters by series. Deletion_policy
 * Stub pages about minor characters in works of fiction are generally merged into a list article.
 * Deletion policy/Minor characters Odessaukrain (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous deletion
Point of information: the previous version of this article was redirected from either a WP:PROD or a WP:SPEEDY (I forget which, and the history is gone). The redirect was deleted subsequently. The article was comparable to the current version but had less information, and a different picture. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you. Odessaukrain (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then as long as my word counts for something, I should say the previous Giant Chicken had considerably less information. I hate to put it this way because it might sound condescending, but it's regrettable that these editors didn't put apply energies to a more notable subject. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)