Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Tubbs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 appears to be a very minor character at this point with no major significance. This does not mean that the character will always be non-notable, it is very possible that in the future this character may be notable, just not now. Also, I should not, that swearing at a person with a different opinion than you, does not say much for the person making an argument, even if it is done in funky characters.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roberta Tubbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged for notability since last year. This The Cleveland Show character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - A strong argument about the notability guideline on point could easily convince me otherwise. But this is a pretty good character article on a major character. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator - Concensus at the AfD for Rallo Tubbs was that the character is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article. There is no indication that Roberta Tubbs is any more notable than her brother. The only source cited on the article is a primary source; there is simply no significant coverage of Roberta Tubbs in reliable secondary sources. Neelix (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I easily added three sources, I could go on. This is a major character, fourth on the bill, for a major, current, regularly scheduled, prime-time, broadcast network series. The only reason you couldn't find sources on the character is because you didn't want to in order to delete the article. Shame on you @%#'$.OsamaPJ (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Of the three sources mentioned, two are primary sources (one from the television network and one from a television channel hosting the series). The remaining source does not demonstrate the individual notability of the character.
- On a separate note, please comment on the articles and not the editors. I do not appreciate accusations, nor do I appreciate being sworn at, whether the profanity is presented in grawlixes or otherwise. Neelix (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you think that by deleting sources I added, then challenging them as suspicious, that it would any way change the facts reported? Ignoring the numerous blog mentions of this character, there are still sufficient sources to justify this under WP:GNG. I added more. The fact that you point to previous sources as being supplied by the network and an affiliate emphasized that this character is on a major, current TV show. Do you think that by ignoring this information justifies your unjustified assault on this article? I didn't know this character or this show from adam, I'm concerned with the principle here. I can see from reviews that the writers are struggling with the character. But its still a front line character getting title credits. Its just too obvious a keep. Acting stupid, by being ignorant to or denying this many sources is just not a good policy when deciding the information that gets deleted from Wikipedia and taken from public view. The world looks here first. This trend could turn into a cancer that will remove other significant characters from our entertainment history. Are we going to delete Pugsley Addams because he was poorly developed by the writers? These malicious efforts to delete anything at all costs really pisses me off. Please, please show some good faith in you nominations for AfD. I'd much rather assume that I could.OsamaPJ (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have accused me of deleting sources you added. I have not done so. I have nominated this article for deletion in good faith, believing the character to be insufficiently notable for its own article. That assessment continues to appear correct to me. Again, please stop making false accusations. Neelix (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to Neelix as an individual. Another editor made this edit. The effect is the same, which frustrates me no end. Forces gang up in a deliberate attempt to delete articles. An article is under challenge--gee, lets make it look bad. Entertainment articles are the worst: The most universal source is IMDB. But some group of WP people have found "excuses" that IMDB is not a valid source. All of a sudden thousands of articles are unreferenced, unsourced, unreliable BLP whatever the semantics you choose to use. That then makes all those articles deletable. I have a serious problem with deleting information. If you don't like the source, get off your butt and find another source. If you are going to discredit IMDB, show me a reliable alternative to IMDB. Don't take the lazy route and delete articles. I do not understand why article deletion is so popular a hobby for you people. The only articles we should be deleting are fraudulent material and true garbage. Does anybody dare to claim this article is fraud? They better not with all the sources that are out there. Or just turn on your TV. So we have to define garbage, an opinion. And the same people who discredit IMDB and want to delete articles have ganged up to make that definition hard. And even at that, it still doesn't make this article non-notable.OsamaPJ (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Welcome to the never-ending debate: deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Some come down on one side, some come down on the other. In case you don't know the name for your people, you belong to the inclusionists. I mostly agree with inclusionism; my own feeling is that deletionists "won the war" and have a deletionist-supportive rule system fairly well-constructed now, to the point where I feel it has created systemic problems that affect Wikipedia's credibility. That's not anything against Neelix personally; I'm just saying in the "grand scale of movers and shakers," that's what I feel's happened in that conflict. But if you examine his history, Neelix seems to have a fairly good metapedian-exopedian mix in his contributions, and so I don't think he deserves being told to "get off [his] butt" or being called lazy -- both of which are not kind. I'd take a deep breath and remember, you're just playing World of Wikipedia. WCityMike 23:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to Neelix as an individual. Another editor made this edit. The effect is the same, which frustrates me no end. Forces gang up in a deliberate attempt to delete articles. An article is under challenge--gee, lets make it look bad. Entertainment articles are the worst: The most universal source is IMDB. But some group of WP people have found "excuses" that IMDB is not a valid source. All of a sudden thousands of articles are unreferenced, unsourced, unreliable BLP whatever the semantics you choose to use. That then makes all those articles deletable. I have a serious problem with deleting information. If you don't like the source, get off your butt and find another source. If you are going to discredit IMDB, show me a reliable alternative to IMDB. Don't take the lazy route and delete articles. I do not understand why article deletion is so popular a hobby for you people. The only articles we should be deleting are fraudulent material and true garbage. Does anybody dare to claim this article is fraud? They better not with all the sources that are out there. Or just turn on your TV. So we have to define garbage, an opinion. And the same people who discredit IMDB and want to delete articles have ganged up to make that definition hard. And even at that, it still doesn't make this article non-notable.OsamaPJ (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have accused me of deleting sources you added. I have not done so. I have nominated this article for deletion in good faith, believing the character to be insufficiently notable for its own article. That assessment continues to appear correct to me. Again, please stop making false accusations. Neelix (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you think that by deleting sources I added, then challenging them as suspicious, that it would any way change the facts reported? Ignoring the numerous blog mentions of this character, there are still sufficient sources to justify this under WP:GNG. I added more. The fact that you point to previous sources as being supplied by the network and an affiliate emphasized that this character is on a major, current TV show. Do you think that by ignoring this information justifies your unjustified assault on this article? I didn't know this character or this show from adam, I'm concerned with the principle here. I can see from reviews that the writers are struggling with the character. But its still a front line character getting title credits. Its just too obvious a keep. Acting stupid, by being ignorant to or denying this many sources is just not a good policy when deciding the information that gets deleted from Wikipedia and taken from public view. The world looks here first. This trend could turn into a cancer that will remove other significant characters from our entertainment history. Are we going to delete Pugsley Addams because he was poorly developed by the writers? These malicious efforts to delete anything at all costs really pisses me off. Please, please show some good faith in you nominations for AfD. I'd much rather assume that I could.OsamaPJ (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Finally got around to it but could not find enough sources. Sources are trivial mentions that she's a character in the show played by a certain actress. No reception to meet WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2010 (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.