Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Arthur

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 of the debate was Disambig per proposal at Talk:Uncle Arthur. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Arthur

Extremely minor character, whom is mentioned once briefly, does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. ACE Spark 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be a redirect to Arthur S. Maxwell, a completely unrelated person who was known by many as Uncle Arthur. MyNam e IsNotBob 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the seminal character by Keith Moon in which he not only played a character called Uncle Arthur but also wrote the lyrics for a song of that name? That deserves at least an appended part of Keith Moon's biography

The article up for deletion has nothing to do with Keith Moon. Try reading it, its about a Simpsons character, whom isn't even seen, and is mentioned only once, in one episode, very breifly. Sure, I suppose if someone was to re-write the entire article to include all "Uncle Arthur" references, it might be more encylopedic. ACE Spark 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the information in this article is already mentioned in the Simpsons extended family article. Therefore - its quite useless.ACE Spark 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are several simpsons articles for obscure family memeber mostly siblings or aunts and uncles of homer and marge. i think they should be agglomerated into one article. however if they are not this article should stand. since other uncles/aunts that have only been mentioned briefly once's articles are not being dleetedQrc2006 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact stands - this character wasn't even seen once, it was mentioned in one joke. If you want it to be like that, then every single joke mentioned on the simpsons gets an article. And if theres other articles - well, there shouldn't be. Other more notable simpsons characters are COMBINED into one article - why should a once mentioned-only-for a gag character have his own article?

The information is already mentioned at Simpson family#Extended_family, so having an seperate article about it is just redundent to the extreme. ACE Spark 08:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. — TheKMan^talk 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listing here should be enough. Yanksox 05:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Yanksox. Not even Uncle Arthur from Bewitched has an article, nor should there be one. Agent 86 05:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your opinion on the issue of the Arthur S. Maxwell estate and their ownership of a registered trademark on the name? Ans e ll 06:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I request that if the article is deleted it should be redirected ti List of characters from The Simpsons. Yanksox 05:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Before I read the article, I thought it'd be about the Bewitched character played by Paul Lynde. GassyGuy 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite - Glenn Robbins is an Australian comedian who does a very famous character called 'Uncle Arthur'. I propose converting the article into a disambiguation page that contains references to Bewitched, Keith Moon, Arthur S. Maxwell, Glenn Robbins and The Simpsons. - Richardcavell 06:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to disambig page per Richardcavell - well known nickname for a number of notable people - Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to disambiguation page as per Richard Cavell. I was expecting to see an article on the Glenn Robbins character and I remember the Paul Lynde character on Bewitcher. Capitalistroadster 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to disambiguation page as per Richard Cavell. Vizjim 09:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as per Richardcavell. I am changing my vote because I like this idea better than deletion. GassyGuy 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, it's ready to go at Talk:Uncle_Arthur#Proposed_new_disambiguation_page. Please peruse and edit at will.- Richardcavell 10:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Rewrite to disambiguation. Arthur S. Maxwell is popularly known (in my view), and a notable character, however, there are others with the name Uncle Arthur, and it is not a person's name, so should be a disambiguation page. Ansell 10:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It may mean little to wikipedia, but the name "Uncle Arthur" is officially a registered trademark as given by the statement "Malcolm Maxwell is the agent/protector of the names "Arthur S. Maxwell®" and of "Uncle Arthur's®" " See the footer of this page
Rewrite as per Richardcavell's proposal.

~~MyNam e IsNotBob 11:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect to Arthur S. Maxwell. If the name is trademark of the Arthur Maxwell estate, chances are that th e other uses are unaware trademark violations. MyNam e IsNotBob 07:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Xyra e l ^T 17:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain. There has been new information since the nomination that is important to the discussion. What are your thoughts on that information? Ans e ll 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arthur S. Maxwell, and put a dab notice about the Simpsons character on it. --Slgrandson 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to disambiguation. Richardcavell's idea seems like a good one, altough I don't really think this Uncle Arthur (simpsons) deserves a mention, considering, as I have said, it's a one time joke that probably wasn't even intended to be taken seriously at all.

If he does he a mention, I think it's a better idea to call him a one-time joke character rather than a minor one, seeing how his existance is only in that one joke. --ACE Spark 18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as per Richardcavell's proposal--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as per Richardcavell's proposal. Regarding copyright/trademark issues, it isn't our problem if the other uses violate some trademark or not - they are used, and we should be noting them in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by chuq (talk • contribs) 09:19, June 20, 2006 (UTC).
Rewrite per Richard Cavell. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:11, 20 June 2006 (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.