Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparlock

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 Jehovah's Witnesses publications#Become Jehovah.27s Friend.E2.80.94Listen.2C Obey.2C and Be Blessed. Information has already been merged to the target. Futher information can be merged if desired from history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sparlock

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Sparlock" is a fictional toy in a video produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses. It has taken on a certain life on the Internet, but reliable sources discussing it are not immediately apparent. Does this subject meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion? Or is it just a coatrack on which to hang commentary about the Jehovah's Witnesses? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I mean I am a JW myself but I am also in favor of being fair and balanced on Wikipedia. This article definitly is a coatrack. The first paragraph is about the main topic (Sparlock) but after that it goes down a negative bias path and doesn't let up. After reading (and editing/adding clarifications to) the article (WP:Coatrack) the article is guilty of several types of Coatrackery: fact-picking for one. Also Weasel Words (which I have noted). This article makes me sick as a Wikipidean (never mind my religious inclinations) totally Negative-POV and biased I say Delete! Andy_Howard (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That video is hilarious/depressing, but not in the least bit notable. A passing internet fad with no lasting impact, and no coverage in anything that passes for a reliable source. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In case it's not obvious, my !vote is ~~Delete~~. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined a speedy as I reckoned the DVDs ruled out speedy as web content, and recommended AfD as this appeared somewhat contentious. (However, FQ got it here first...) Unless it gets referenced a bit better, I think it will have to go. Whether it's a coatrack for or an attack on the Witnesses, I wouldn't care to say. It may just be a bit of reporting by a neutral. Whichever, the production of this dare I call it a fairy tale seems to have backfired. (What did people say for 'backfire' before cars?) I'll be watching this with interest (which is more than I'm doing with my bank account...). Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(A backfire was originally a backburn used as a firebreak. Usage in reference to cars came later.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article, and looked through Google News for the past month, I'm not sure that this isn't a hoax. I would recommend a wait-and-see attitude, however: sources will either become apparent--or their lack will--in relatively short order. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax, but nor has it been established as notable. However, the publisher of the video puts no specific focus on the character itself. If notability is established at some point, it would be more appropriate to focus on the actual product, which is the children's DVD.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst an entertaining meme has developed surrounding a fictional toy portrayed in a religious children's DVD, it is not notable (and nor has any official spelling of the character's name ever been provided). Some former JWs want to keep the article based on a subjective feeling that its creepiness is 'important' to the former member movement; whilst that may be a valid argument in certain venues, such as forums, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, because it conflicts with Wikipedia's requirements for notability and reliable sources, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The actual subject of the video is for children to be obedient, and the actual toy is merely a plot device in the film to further the actual subject. As odd as it may seem to choose a plastic 'magical' toy to teach such a lesson, the toy itself is actually ancillary to the plot. There are already various Wikipedia articles in which to indicate JWs' general beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (probably edit down). If something's becoming a popular meme, people are likely to search for it, so it makes sense to keep a small amount of info even if it's not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Detail about Sparlock would be out of scope for the general WTS article. Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Insufficient notability to merge.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in redirecting if it's not mentioned in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The basis for having a redirect is if someone is likely to search for it, not solely whether it is explicitly mentioned in the target article. The beliefs article remains the most relevant redirect target.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This DVD is a publication of the WTS. If the decision is to merge, it'd probably be as a listing for the short film Become Jehovah's Friend: Listen, Obey, and Be Blessed in the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Only a very brief summary would be required, and no more than a sentence would be required to indicate that a meme began.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses publications as above. Tthaas (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses publications, so long as it's only a couple of sentences. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jehovah's Witness publications... seems like something someone might search for, but not much in the way of coverage to write an encyclopedic article. Probably makes the most sense to readers in the context of Jehovah's Witness stuff in general. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in that sense it would be crufty then. Along with other Wikipedia no-nos: (Weasel Words, Coatrackery) Andy_Howard (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A couple of lines, suitable for the 'notability' of this topic, have already been added at the merge target, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2012 (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.