Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy (Trailer Park Boys character) (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 redirect to List of Trailer Park Boys characters. The article still doesn't argue for any real-world significance. Arguing that someone will fix the original research is not a remedy for an article that is entirely original research.-Wafulz 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy (Trailer Park Boys character)

2nd nom - still not notable per WP:FICT. See talk page for another editor's reason for re-instating article. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major character on a popular Canadian television show. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the show in quite a while. The article isn't clear enough for the lay reader why he should be considered a major character on the show. Can you expand on that? Canuckle 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's listed as major in the list of characters. Having seen quite a few episodes, I would tend to agree. When I saw Patrick Roach on Canada Day, the swarming of fans around him would indicate to me anyways the popularity of his character. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:FICT says that major characters are covered in the article on that work - in this case, Trailer Park Boys. Only when an "encyclopedic treatment" of a character (which this is not - WP:OR and lack of references) has caused the section to be too long should it get an article of its' own. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've failed to realize what an Encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Articles exist on topics not because there's not enough room on one page. Articles exist to cover subjects. You have to look beyond what "WP:FICT" says. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you have no sources that say he's a main character and why? Just his listing as same on the show's article and what you've seen with your own eyes? Canuckle 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find one, if need be. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for meaningful out-of-universe content should have been the first thing done in creating this article. So, yeah, you need more than one. Canuckle 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article needs sources. However, lack of sources is no reason to delete an article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability is reason for deletion and this article never even explictly claims that "Randy is a major character" let alone has a source for that claim. So it's an unsourced unencyclopedic treatment. Canuckle 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research, he is not normally considered among the "main three characters", but is more of a supporting character. However, I feel his notability is determined by being a character that appears in most or all episodes. For example, Ned Flanders is quite notable, but probably appears in a smaller % of Simpsons Episodes than Randy on TPB. I put in some references, but since I haven't watched every espisode (and certainly not chronologically), I would be too tedious to complete the sourcing. From what I do know though, the facts in the articles seem to be correct. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral due to WP:OR concerns. Lots of assertions made with no citations. Corpx 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this back? We had an earlier AfD and the consensus was redirect. Nothing in the article ahs changed, so this hould not need to be reconsidered. Speedy Redirect & protect. Eusebeus 09:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Earl Andrew. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability, which per WP:FICT, is how to determine which characters are major. Jay32183 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added some sources. Care to check them out? -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My assessment is based on the article after the edit to which you are referring. I stand at delete. Jay32183 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Earl Andrew. Same goes with the other TPB character articles. --FrankCostanza 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jay 32183. It fails WP:NOR. GreenJoe 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOR is not a reason to delete an article, Pete. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, since WP:NOR does not allow original research, if an article consists of only original research, then it is a reason to delete. However, that was not my reasoning, so the "per Jay32183" confuses me. Jay32183 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of this article is original research anyways, since all of it can either be sourced through episode synopsises or through actual episodes themselves. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - However, the article still lacks secondary sources to establish notability or provide any real world context. Jay32183 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems fine to me. Any OR can be dealt with independent of AfD, as this is not cleanup. —Xezbeth 08:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OR isn't the problem. The issues are WP:N WP:FICT and WP:WAF Jay32183 17:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete if his character mattered, then it would be sufficient to list him on the Trailer Park Boys page. Unless there is critical, third party review of how his character is special and that analysis is independent of Trail Park Boys as a whole, then he does not deserve his own page. NobutoraTakeda 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1][reply]
- That's also not a valid reason to delete a page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. The character has no notability beyond the subject discussed and does not deserve to be in a page seperated from the subject. Only characters, like Hamlet or similar characters who are discussed as seperate from the subject deserve to have their own page. If the character is needed to be in Wikipedia then the place is only on the page discussing the show and not on his own. NobutoraTakeda 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character from a significant show. - SimonP 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge. We have an article on Ned Flanders - but I think we should not. Randy is certainly at the same level as Ned Flanders, importance-wise, when you compare the two shows. However, I agree with NobutoraTakeda that, since Randy is unimportant outside the context of the show, there should not be a separate article on him. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should put Ned Flanders of AfD then? Anyways, it's been 10 days, shouldn't this be closed? I'd do it, but it's a conflict of interest. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - COUGH COUGH. Ned Flanders to AfD. You're funny! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:55, 20 July 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.