Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy)

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 delete. east.718 at 06:55, December 20, 2007

Ernie (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable character. Article details every occurrence of this running gag on Family Guy, padding somewhat with original research, no out-of-universe content. An article on this topic was deleted in 2007-04-17T18:46:45 (after being redirected) when character was named "Giant Chicken". / edg ☺ ☭ 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, merge any sourced content to List of characters from Family Guy. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this content is sourced to the show; since WP:NOT#PLOT, there is at this time nothing to merge. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I said deIete. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A show is a valid primary source for its own characters and plot. (It isn't, of course, a valid secondary source for showing notability.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I know. I basically brought this up so that "it's too long to merge so KEEP" wouldn't rear its ugly head. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a great running gag, but doesn't need it's own article. This is just one of many such gags/characters in the show. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, content added that might be useful in the future. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — This article is useful for understanding the gag. Providing useful information would seem to be the purpose of encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfirey (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it then. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USEFUL is not a reason to retain an article on a non-notable subject. The argument you give is that someone may need this information to explain the joke; an encyclopedia does not contain articles explaining each joke made in any comedy. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought we already got rid of this article long ago. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Plus, recreated deleted material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nonnotable. Unreferenced discussion. `'Míkka>t 01:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters from Family Guy. After trimming down the plot summary, the content seems equivalent to that in the list entry. Deletion policy says to merge and redirect, not delete, redundant content. DHowell (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This nomination reeks of WP:PROBLEM. Please be wary of the nominator's reasons for deleting this page.

1. the Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson Family Guy characters both have 5 appearances on Family Guy, just one more than Ernie who has 4. When Ernie has his magical 5th appearance on Family Guy, will the nominator suddenly allow others to recreate this article, and will editors then have to rewrite this article? Who decided on this arbitrary number?
2. Anthony.bradbury deleted the page because it was a #REDIRECT [[ ]]. If you look at this Anthony's contributions, he has deleted thousands of these redirects. He probably never even look at the history of the page.
3. this article has never been up for AfD before,
4. To say this article contains WP:OR is laughable, there is no research on this page, and this page is exactly the same as 8 other reoccurring characters Family Guy pages, which risk being deleted also if this page is deleted for the same reason.
5. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: 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.
6. WP:ITSNOTABLE The Non-notable character argument is also ludicrous, based on Wikipedia:Television episodes
7. The "no out-of-universe" argument is also absurd, based on Wikipedia:Television episodes
8. Other editors have began to add references cites to this page, which did not exist when the article was nominated for deletion. The page now has more sources than many other reoccurring Family Guy character pages, it has the only cited book reference I have seen in the reoccurring characters. If this page is successfully deleted, all of those pages are at risk of being deleted too for the same reason.

For a detailed explanation of each point see the talk page.

Based on the above information, I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw this nomination. Odessaukrain (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Non-notable fictional chicken. --Jack Merridew 13:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Ernie with 4 appearances, different from Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson, both Family Guy characters who have had 5 appearances? Odessaukrain (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The character does not have any real world coverage, so it does not require an article. TTN (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The characters, Jonathan Weed, Joe Swanson, Mort Goldman, Tom Tucker, Neil Goldman, Kevin Swanson, Herbert, and Jonathan Weed also have no real world coverage, yet they are Family Guy pages. Real world coverage is preferable, but not required. Wikipedia:Television episodes states: 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. All 8 of the existing Family Guy wikipages I list above fall into this category. Odessaukrain (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Basically, you're inviting those articles to be looked at and, if warranted, nominated, too. --Jack Merridew 13:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling the other articles "crap" (nice manipulation of the actual link: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), I am not arguing whether this page should exist simply because other pages exists.

I am trying to show that this page meets or exceeds existing television character minimum guidelines to be an article on Wikipedia. I mention Wikipedia:Television episodes because of the difficulty of finding external references and citations on this topic, as Wikipedia:Television episodes acknowledges.

This comparison of wikiguidlines is what your extremely derogatory quote of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ignores.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not stop people from comparing the minimal wiki-standard for articles. After all, isn't that what an AfD is? It is a determination of whether the article meets minimal Wikipedia guidelines. This article does.

I would really appreciate a straight answer: Do you think Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson, standard Television character wikipages should be deleted and why? Odessaukrain (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought that was the shortcut and only played with it when it came up red in the preview window. I have not looked at those two and may, or may not, next. --Jack Merridew 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at 'em and, in their present form they do not establish their notability or cite any third party sources, so they either need work on this score or they're in trouble (the link on the Bonnie page was lame, imho). --Jack Merridew 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie is nothing but a gag character. Show me a character that's just a gag character that has its own article, and then I agree with you not otherwise. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

me thinks your reply is not to me but to Odessaukrain... --Jack Merridew 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Merridew, way to skillfully avoid the question, sigh, is it because you know this question is a lose- lose?

Lets make it easy.

1. If you acknowledge that those two articles are up to minimum wikipedia standards, then you would reluctantly have to admit that this page is up to minimum wikistandards, as I explained in my reasons to keep above.
2. If you say those articles should be deleted, my question would be why? What is the minimum wikipedia standard for television character pages? You would answer, citing something I hope, then I would show that this is article meets those standards.

Both know that this page meets or exceeds the minimal wiki-standard for television character articles. The problem for me is that there is no way for you to save face at this point. Odessaukrain (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes; Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson are not notable, and do not for any other reason deserve their own pages on Wikipedia. This "mini-standard" does not exist. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a commonly used shortcut for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Deleted comment was here]

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Television episodes that justifies retention of Ernie (Family Guy). List of one-time characters from The Simpsons is perennially (and reasonably) nominated for deletion, and usually kept out of caution that something in it might be worth keeping – and I don't need to tell "hundreds of" editors anything. Also, while I appreciate that removing the expletive from your previous conversation was well-intended, WP:TPG recommends you not edit previously posted comments that others may be replying to (or in the process of replying to). / edg ☺ ☭ 14:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It seems the article has gone through a lot of changes since it was first nominated. I don't know if that's enough to keep, but it should definately be taken into consideration. Personally, I'd prefer to see improvable articles kept so they can continue to be worked on and fall in line with Wikipedia policy. - Superlex (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much effort has gone into this. Sourcing to episodes is okay for WP:VERIFIABILITY, but does not help establish WP:NOTABILITY, which is the main issue in this Afd. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said it established notability. I just pointed it out so we could take that into consideration. The List of characters from Family Guy seems to already have a good paragraph on Ernie, so maybe this would be better as a merge/redirect? - Superlex (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. I just popped the voice actor and all the citations into List of characters from Family Guy, which is chronically undersourced. Merge accomplished. Thanks for bringing this up. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real-world significance. And thanks to Odessaukrain for assistance in pointing out the other pages that need to be cleaned up or deleted as well. Eusebeus (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my message to User_talk:Edgarde#Changed vote to merge is meant for you too Eusebeus. Odessaukrain (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The character has no real-world notability. So delete it. I don't see a need to redirect, as no one will search for the character with the (Family Guy) appendage. It is already on the Ernie disambig page, so nothing to do after deletion. I (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:FICT and already covered well enough by List of characters from Family Guy. Collectonian (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ok, that Simpsons page is actually good example. Hmm, maybe, just maybe, this article can stay. I still don't know whether or not the chicken is notable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is useful for understanding very popular TV show. I can certainly see people coming here trying to understand the running gag. Hobit (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia isn't here to explain every running gag on Family Guy. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nor is Wikipedia here to document every president of Harvard. I strongly suspect there are more people who would view a running gag on Family Guy as more notable than the most obscure president of the Harvard. Hobit (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If Wikipedia is documenting every president of Harvard, then it would be because each individual is notable in their own right, or that there are articles that have yet to be deleted/merged. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per notability, verifiability, and this brilliantly worded argument. Well-done to the editors of the article! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, As notable as Barney Gumble, and this article has pretty much the same kind of sources. This character is verifiable per the book cited in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you compare the two? Barney has been in existance for twenty years, been in 100+ episodes and has been analyzed in several independant books. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was comparing the references in the two articles. --Pixelface (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you wrote "As notable as Barney Gumble". Comparing the two is like comparing Meg Griffin and Archie Bunker or Ralph Kramden (who, by the way, doesn't have his own page) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, as notable as Barney Gumble judging from the references in the two articles. --Pixelface (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of those sources are independent of the show. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it does look like the writer of the episode guide, Steve Callaghan, is a writer for Family Guy. How about the BBC?[1] TV Guide?[2] Action figure?[3] IGN?[4] UGO interview with Seth Macfarlane?[5] Wizard! magazine[6] Yale Daily News?[7] New York Post?[8] University Wire?[9] Daily Targum?[10] Apparently the chicken is the final boss in the Family Guy Video Game!. News 8 Austin?[11] I think the character is notable, but if the article is deleted, there is an article on Wikia about the character[12], and it is on the List of characters from Family Guy. --Pixelface (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that this character should be on List of characters from Family Guy. Feel free to add those citations to his section. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no secondary sources to add real world context. Fails WP:Plot and I doubt there are any sources to add real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ridernyc (talk · contribs) is correct - Unless, that is, sources can be provided to give some context and analysis to this article from secondary sources - otherwise it's just a descriptive recounting about the character, with no notability established or significance. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. I've added some reception information and such to the article, fully backed by sources. It's mostly just reworded and recycled from the "Blind Ambition" article though. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent effort to improve the article! Bravo!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in its rewritten form It's not much but it is enough to avoid deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.