Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Young

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rje (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 16 November 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Non-encyclopedic fancruft. Charlie Young a fictional character on a TV drama. He isn't a real person who cured cancer, or invented the space shuttle. He's a fictional character. He's not even a character responsible for fomenting a major movement in real life (like say, Holden Caulfield). Does every fictional character require an autonomous article? I'd like to see this article, and other "character articles" Merged and Redirected to either of the West Wing, or a to-be-created West Wing Characters or List of West Wing Characters articles since the minutiae about a TV show shouldn't merit a endless spring of autonomous articles. That's what a fan website (like West Wing Continuity Guide) or an "official fan book" is for. If that isn't possible, then Delete. --ExplorerCDT 21:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • P.S. If this one gets deleted, I will go after the rest of this non-encyclopedic fancruft. --ExplorerCDT 21:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep. We have thousands of non-major fictional characters as entries on Wikipedia, from the cast of well-known shows to more obscure ones. There's no reason to delete all the characters from The West Wing other than for personal reasons. If we do this for The West Wing, it out to be done for every television series' characters on Wikipedia, with the full maintenance of the larger individual articles in the main article on the series. If you're going to go after Charlie Young, go put a vote for deletion on Jean-Luc Picard and see how that goes. By your policy, every fictional character should only have an entry on the work from which they came, including such major characters as Holden Caulfield. --Xinoph 21:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • P.S. Comment (after your edit) - The TV character of Charlie Young didn't change America. Holden Caulfield, and others like him (Archie Bunker) did. That's the difference, and why I referenced him. But in other cases, put a section on the main page titled "list of characters", with brief blurbs. Anymore than a blurb, and you might as well run the official-fan-book-of-the-(insert tv show name here)-industry out of business. --ExplorerCDT 22:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Take a look at the page I'm working on for The Grand Illusion (movie). That's how I think a Wikipedia article on a work of fiction (and its characters) should be handled...I don't think Captains von Rauffenstein and de Boeldieu need their own pages, a cast listing is sufficient. Not that an brief blurb about each character would be interesting anyway. --ExplorerCDT 22:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I have nothing against the West Wing, actually I watch it every week (Season 6 looks promising where Season 5 really lacked good stories). But as to deleting the plethora of fancruft articles, we might as well start somewhere. Join my crusade, and we'll clean Wikipedia of this junk (and eventually Jean-Luc Picard too, but even the Vandals had to sack small villages before they marched on Rome). Solidarity, comrade. --ExplorerCDT 22:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just don't think it falls under the Deletion Policy categories and doesn't belong there. Again, I assert that if this is done with Charlie Young it should be done with every fictional character, regardless of its original source material or historical importance. We should have a consistent policy. I don't have a problem with fictional characters having a listing on Wikipedia.--Xinoph 22:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment - that I don't disagree with. Let's get rid of them all. I'm ready to run to the barricades, how about you? Deletion Policy question though...this isn't encylopedic and has no potential to be, it's fancruft. And when you look at What Wikipedia is not it says plainly that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a repository for fan pages.--ExplorerCDT 22:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- Comment: Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you've a right to delete it. You don't have a right to burn books either! If you don't like these (admitadly light hearted) articles then just don't read them, but please don't try telling other people what they can and can't read or right on this website. It's supposed to be for open access as long as you stick to the rules, and no rules have been broken here.

  • (editorial comment: the unsigned comment directly above is from 81.157.123.246, and the user's only contribution to Wikipedia, -ExplorerCDT 00:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC))
Two policies, in my opinion have been broken: One–this is fancruft; two–it is non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia says it is not meant to be a fan guide, and that non-encyclopedic articles can be remedied through deletion. I have nothing against the West Wing or its characters, and to accuse me of being a "book burner" or a "censor" is inflammatory rhetoric. It is not that I hate the content of the article, it is that I support the position that this is not the proper place for them. Wikipedia is not the source of all information for fans of the West Wing, nor does it state a desire to be. If you think otherwise, I would encourage you to go ahead and build a fan website to serve that need. But to claim (resorting to the rhetoric you used) that there shouldn't be a debate on this—just because there are people out there that like this type of article—is akin to the tyranny of a majority. --ExplorerCDT 00:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry not to have logged on before (the comment before the last is mine). And no, I'm not a big contributor, but I still think that my opinion is valid. But anyway, back to our healthy debate: what's fancruft? The Charlie Young article may be a bit dull but it's not really non-encyclopaidic. It's pretty matter of fact actually, well matter of fiction anyway - but this is fine in Wikipedia (at least as far as my understanding of the rules goes). May I refer you to the discussion of a notional Trillian (from Hitch Hikers Guide) article that is contained within the rules definition (check your fiction)? I'm not trying to halt debate just because I disagree with you, I just like the west wing, like the west wing content on wikipedia and have enjoyed reading it. I've checked through the rules and I honestly don't think that this article breaks any of them. - broadstoneplace

But don't you think that content is better suited for a fan website, and not an encyclopedia? The West Wing hasn't changed the world. Esoteric desire to memorialize the characters is best done on a fan website or in the treatment of an "inside the West Wing" book marketed to fans. It isn't encyclopedic. --ExplorerCDT 23:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep this. Just because it isn't of incredible social importance doesn't mean that it isn't worth being in Wikipedia. The article itself has it's problems just like any other article but it shouldn't be deleted. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 00:09, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep: whilst I really dislike fancruft there are a lot worse offenders than articles, such as this, which at least refer to major characters in a major show. You really need to look at some of the other fancruft on wikipedia: one-off Simpsons jokes and characters/races appearing in single obscure Star Wars/Trek books are far worse in my mind. Rje 00:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlie_Young&oldid=7507395"