Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Mayer
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 keep. John254 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Susan Mayer
fails to meet WP:Notability guidelines Ultra! 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in mind, we have articles on fictional characters from dozens of television shows. The characters on Friends, Frasier, Seinfeld and The Simpsons come to mind. How does this article differ in notability from other fictional television characters? - auburnpilot talk 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - The nominator is right in saying that this article does not currently establish notability, and needs vast improvement to meet Wikipedia standards, and yet... a certain level of common sense should also be applied here. Susan is a major character in a highly notable television series, her article might be cruft right now but I don't think it would be very difficult to establish enough notability to justify it. Her page needs a bit of effort but I think it deserves to exist. Afraid I can't make a stronger argument than that, however, since there isn't anything besides plot on the page and I'm not willing to search for sources myself because I hate the character. :P A good project for the DH task force perhaps. Paul 730 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nominating this article for deletion makes no sense at all. Why do you propose this one for deletion, but not Lynette Scavo, Bree Hodge and so on? Be consistent in your deletion nominations. Also it would be nice to explain your nominations with more than a few words. You also have to consider that characters in other TV shows such as The OC still have their own articles, such as Ryan Atwood, Marissa Cooper, etc... even if The OC is finished. Desperate Housewives characters are much more notable that The OC characters, because DH still is producing new seasons and episodes (7 seasons are expected) so they deserve articles. These characters re currently notable enough to have articles. Maybe not in 10 years but right now their articles should not be deleted. Canjth (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Canjth, I agree with half of what you said, but not all of that about notability. I don't believe for one second that the main Desperate Housewives characters are more notable than the main The O.C. characters. If anything, I'd say that they are equally notable. It doesn't matter how many years pass by after this show ends, these characters will still be notable. Notability doesn't just fade away with time (what is relevant often does). The main characters from Beverly Hills, 90210 are still notable and their show hasn't been on for years. But, anyway, yeah, I vote Keep (as seen below). Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep with conditions If the article can cite some third-party sources, improve its content to the point at which it would be useful to a random person who wanted to know about it and be written in a encyclopedic prose (not Narrative). Otherwise Delete. Atyndall93 | talk 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Character is notable. Rray (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The article doesn't currently meet WP:FICTION, which says that real world notability should be shown. However, this is a major character in a much-talked about series, and that real world notability should be easy to find. (The keep is weak only because it's conditional on that notability being shown.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Paul said it all. Clearly this article could be much more than just plot summary. Work to improve it, there's no need to delete it.Gungadin 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sources are available. [1] -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As I stated on my talk page when notified about this deletion "debate"...I wish that more Wikipedian editors would check for the notability of articles before nominating those articles for deletion simply based on what is or what isn't in those articles (my other comment is above). Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't like to disagree with you, Flyer, but the burden of evidence does lie with the editors who add material or want material to be kept, not the editors who nominate material for deletion. I have to question the agenda behind this AfD however; Ultra, do you seriously believe this character isn't notable, or are you just trying to motivate people to establish that notability in the article? Paul 730 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Paul, the responsibility of at least checking the article's notability does somewhat lie with the nominator when it comes to deletion debates. I've elaborated further below, right after Bignole's comment. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the nominator should keep WP:OSTRICH in mind. While it's true that the burden lays with the article, a little good faith effort on the part of the nominator is nice. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, but why should editors perpetuate the cycle by basically saying, "Keep - because the nominator doesn't even attempt to look for sources on the subjects notability". That's like saying, "Well, if you're going to take your toy back I want my toy back too!". It's not helping the situation any. Whether the nominator's actions are a little overzealous is irrelevant to the fact that he does have a point about the article's notability. What should have been done is that those who believe the article warrants individuation, but clearly lacks any independant sourcse to support that, should have requested that the nominator give them some time to find sources. Instead of simply voting "Keep", and then complaining about how nominators don't look for sources for the article, just say "Give me a few days to see if I can find sources". Obviously it will take some time to clean up the page entirely, but there is a difference between an article lacking the assertion of notability, and one that simply needs to be cleaned up. Currently, this articles falls into both categories, but one of those is faster to accomplish than the other. Let's not complain that other people aren't helping, because that doesn't help any more than...well, not helping. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Paul and Bignole, I know that the burden of evidence is mainly on the creator of the article's shoulders, but the Wikipedia deletion nomination process states that the nominator should check for notability of the article first (at least the last time I looked at it it did). Nominating for deletion should be a last resort. It saves us from going through unneeded deletion debates...such as this. I'm tired of seeing notable articles deleted from Wikipedia simply because the nominator for the deletion didn't do a simple Google check (although Google is not always a sure win, but you get my point). This is truly a problem on Wikipedia. It's wreckless. And AfD shouldn't be used to nominate editors to improve articles. I'm not saying that I assumed bad faith on the part of this editor, but AfD surely doesn't seem to have been used as a last resort in this instance. If it's childish of me to point out that more editors on Wikipeia need to check for the article's notability before nominating that article for deletion, then I suppose I'll keep being childish. Because I find it childish and downright silly of an editor not to check for the notability of an article he or she put effort into nominating for deletion in the first place. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, but how childish is it to sit here and complain about the nomination and how they need to check notability, instead of simply doing it yourself and saying "see, it does"? Obviously pretty hard since you didn't bother to do it. Here, allow me to help. Google News for basic terms "Susan Mayer" and "Desperate Housewives". Here, now that I've helped it along, why don't you (or someone who actually likes the show enough to help the article out) go through all 615 sources and find out if she has more than just a blip mention, or if they are actually talking about the character in an encyclopedic way. Let's quit wasting the AfD space bickering about how no one wants to do notability checking themselves. That is what is childish (and that statement is directed at everyone on this page complaining about other people's lack of actions, instead of focusing on the article itself). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Allow me to apologize for my rude tone in my message, as it isn't helping the situation either. I'm just as annoyed as you about all of this. It seems like everyone on Wikipedia would rather start complaining about everything than actually doing something about it (this applies to both ends of the spectrum). We'd all rather tell other people to either fix it or leave it alone, instead of doing any work ourselves. Anyway, it doesn't make up for my attitude in my post, so I apologize for that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but how childish is it to sit here and complain about the nomination and how they need to check notability, instead of simply doing it yourself and saying "see, it does"? Obviously pretty hard since you didn't bother to do it. Here, allow me to help. Google News for basic terms "Susan Mayer" and "Desperate Housewives". Here, now that I've helped it along, why don't you (or someone who actually likes the show enough to help the article out) go through all 615 sources and find out if she has more than just a blip mention, or if they are actually talking about the character in an encyclopedic way. Let's quit wasting the AfD space bickering about how no one wants to do notability checking themselves. That is what is childish (and that statement is directed at everyone on this page complaining about other people's lack of actions, instead of focusing on the article itself). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, Paul and Bignole, I know that the burden of evidence is mainly on the creator of the article's shoulders, but the Wikipedia deletion nomination process states that the nominator should check for notability of the article first (at least the last time I looked at it it did). Nominating for deletion should be a last resort. It saves us from going through unneeded deletion debates...such as this. I'm tired of seeing notable articles deleted from Wikipedia simply because the nominator for the deletion didn't do a simple Google check (although Google is not always a sure win, but you get my point). This is truly a problem on Wikipedia. It's wreckless. And AfD shouldn't be used to nominate editors to improve articles. I'm not saying that I assumed bad faith on the part of this editor, but AfD surely doesn't seem to have been used as a last resort in this instance. If it's childish of me to point out that more editors on Wikipeia need to check for the article's notability before nominating that article for deletion, then I suppose I'll keep being childish. Because I find it childish and downright silly of an editor not to check for the notability of an article he or she put effort into nominating for deletion in the first place. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, but why should editors perpetuate the cycle by basically saying, "Keep - because the nominator doesn't even attempt to look for sources on the subjects notability". That's like saying, "Well, if you're going to take your toy back I want my toy back too!". It's not helping the situation any. Whether the nominator's actions are a little overzealous is irrelevant to the fact that he does have a point about the article's notability. What should have been done is that those who believe the article warrants individuation, but clearly lacks any independant sourcse to support that, should have requested that the nominator give them some time to find sources. Instead of simply voting "Keep", and then complaining about how nominators don't look for sources for the article, just say "Give me a few days to see if I can find sources". Obviously it will take some time to clean up the page entirely, but there is a difference between an article lacking the assertion of notability, and one that simply needs to be cleaned up. Currently, this articles falls into both categories, but one of those is faster to accomplish than the other. Let's not complain that other people aren't helping, because that doesn't help any more than...well, not helping. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the nominator should keep WP:OSTRICH in mind. While it's true that the burden lays with the article, a little good faith effort on the part of the nominator is nice. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Paul, the responsibility of at least checking the article's notability does somewhat lie with the nominator when it comes to deletion debates. I've elaborated further below, right after Bignole's comment. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't like to disagree with you, Flyer, but the burden of evidence does lie with the editors who add material or want material to be kept, not the editors who nominate material for deletion. I have to question the agenda behind this AfD however; Ultra, do you seriously believe this character isn't notable, or are you just trying to motivate people to establish that notability in the article? Paul 730 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep DH iss one of the most notable show in the entire world and Susan is one of the 5 leads. The main problem is the fact that it is not well written but it is easy to fix. The article needs to stay, I don't get why we should delete it, especially if it is just this one. The character was even the center of a big controversy this season (philippino doctor's anyone?) a unnotabe character can't create controversy.
- Weak keep Generally, I would vote Keep, especially if the article could be improved somewhat. It's a lead character from a very well-known TV show, which asserts the subject's notability. I have to vote weak for this one, however, for the lack of third-party sources. Also, partly for its current state of style the article is written in, although that's not substantial reason to vote for its deletion. --JamieS93 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The article can definitely be improved somewhat and it doesn't deserve deletion as of yet. Sfufan2005 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
