Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

1901:

merchandise) has been added to the article although it was claimed in the AfD that "this article could easily be brought up to standards with a few hours of work". There is thus no point in discussing how long the stand-alone article should be. I was about to ask the closing admin how to proceed (reconsideration, DRV, etc.), but the AfD was closed by a non-admin who is also currently blocked for un-wiki-like behavior. I'd say two more days for someone to establish the so widely claimed notability, or I'll admin-redirect with no opposition to any mergers. (Although I have !voted in the AfD and the discussion thread above, I have no COI in this article/discussion in itself as I have never seen FG. If someone wants another admin to close this discussion, please say so, but I think this discussion has run its course to take action now.) –

167: 1154:. A procedural keep, as this closure was, doesn't preclude merging. Mind you, I don't see anything wrong with nominating such articles for AfD (and I definitely don't see it as abuse), other than the merges dictated by the closure never seem to be carried out. That said, I've redirected the page. There's not much unique content in this page as opposed to the LOC, if at all. Had this been closed by an admin, I reckon that all of the keep votes except for DGG's would've been discarded, as they either had no basis in guideline/policy or relied on an already refuted keep rationale. 854:

shouldn't have to worry. Just because the result was keep doesn't change the fact that there were no valid arguments for keeping; the closer didn't seem to actually read the arguments presented. Do you plan to fix this article now, instead of years ago when it was made? This isn't an article that can be fixed in a few hours, as no one has done so - no one who voted on the AfD has even bothered to fix the problems with this article since it was closed, because they care that it gets an article, not that it gets a good one.

291: 213: 195: 147: 22: 81: 1643:"Notability" has no place on a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A majority of editors believe it meets our guidelines and policies; far more editors have worked on the article and come here to read it and argued to keep it than the handful in some snap shot in time AfD and merge discussions. I am more than happy to help work on improving the articles and have provided the links above so that we can work together to do so. Best, -- 53: 91: 281: 263: 520: 994:

and I reverted back to an earlier version. The role the character has in the different episodes is exactly the right kind of specific content needed, and such descriptive material in an article can perfectly well be sourced by the primary work itself. I do not think it looks good to start deleting content during an afd or merge discussion.

1029:

a one-time joke that has never had any reference made to it ever again, but that one person doesn't validate including such content. Most of the Family Guy articles are built on one-time jokes that have no bearing on the character, which shouldn't be appropriate regardless of your stance on "fictional articles".

1613:

What the creators do with the character doesn't show any notability. And, out of curiosity, at what point should I have to do the job of those who want the article? "I think it's notable, so you go do the work for me." A majority of people think that the article doesn't have sufficient notability, so

1028:

The content is not appropriate, and it's not even a matter of "fictional content" as it is "silly, absurd content that has no place on this article". I'm sure that there's probably one person on the Earth that might be interested that in a single episode Tom Tucker asked Neil to pee in his coffee as

1573:

When there's an action figure of Mr. Weed, having one is not a very strong assertion of notability. There's action figures for most famous shows, and the fact of the matter is that this two year article has no assertions of notability in it. Even after people said "we could add such assertions in a

860:

And Smallman, no, it definitely does NOT need to "simply be expanded". You propose reverting the deletion of the content, which was deleted for the reason that it was unsourced, trivial, and contributed nothing to the article. And that I removed the content has no bearing on this discussion. Let me

853:

It said it could be discussed at a more appropriate venue, suggesting that merging was an option, and as such, SHOULD be discussed. It doesn't matter if he didn't specifically state that it was needed, the closer suggested that it be done. And if you honestly believe that it is a valid article, you

993:

combination articles and defend them. The true problem is the people who want as little fictional content as possible. If people however are going to insist on removing content from combined fiction articles we may need to have separate ones. And defend the content. The removal went much too far,

988:

a merge discussion, but we can certainly have one-- In my opinion, the reasonable thing to do here is to make a combination article, with the sections at somewhat greater length than the present version of Tom Tucker. There is no possible way of indefinitely supporting individual articles of this

1652:

Oh? I guess when the foundation for whether an article warrants existence was established on Knowledge as being notability, verifiability, and being well-referenced, they were totally wrong. That people say "it follows guidelines and policies because I said so" doesn't have any bearing. Consensus

1424:

A discussion happens before you take action, not afterward. 8 people voted to keep the article, 1 said delete, 6 said to merge, and 2 voted to redirect. As I stated elsewhere, a merge or redirect is the same as delete. There won't be any information at all "merged", other than perhaps a single

1608:

How should I even have to explain notability? How can you call an article being notable "I like it/I don't like it" mentality? Notability is infinitely more important than you seem to make it out to be. And you honestly think that being a recurring character in a popular show asserts notability

1589:

Because some editors believe this content relevant and because it is a reconizable character with multiple appearances, there is no reason to delete or merge it. What is an assertion of notability anyway? I base my arguments on objective and reasonable standards, not I like it/I don't like it

1559:

The character is familiar and relevant to millions of people and is from a mainstream show that even spawned a video game. It is thus notable by any reasonable standard. If this is a notability issue than it is further evidence that notability is the most nonsensical inclusion criteria ever

1290:

The AfD result was Keep. The same editors, intent on making this article disappear, are now continuing this AfD here. I am very concerned that this discussion started on a blatant falsehood, that "the AfD said we need a merge discussion" and the editor has ignored my calls to strike out this

1203:

require a merger, but it in no way rules one out. We do not need to open another AfD to merge the article, we just need to come to some consensus here on whether or not it should be merged. I for one think it should, as there really aren't sufficient sources covering the subject to merit a

1971:

I would have merged parts of the "old" plot summary, but would merge nothing of the last article version before redirection. But I am not going to hunt down old article revisions. As I said, if you feel that anything should be merged that's now hidden in the page history, feel free to do. –

1900:

What is the difference between this "poll" and the discussion above? It seems it has already been determined that this article should be merged for lack of notability, either by vote count or by common sense seeing that not a single reliable/regarded source for non-trivial information (not

1590:

subjectivity like "notability." Objectively the article concerns a character that is memorable enough to be recurring in a mainstream franchise that includes TV shows, DVDs, and video game, and important enough in a marketing sense to be made into a toy. There are indeed plenty of

1653:

does not have absolute control over the outcomes on Knowledge if the consensus does not have an appropriate argument. What you have said is essentially "people care enough about this article to fight tooth and nail to keep it, but will lose interest immediately once it's safe." -

1037:

says anything about the creation of the character, it never ever says anything about his reception, never once mentions anything that would even remotely suggest the character is notable, etc. Really, what's there to miss? This article is notoriously bad. -

1598:

from which to draw out of universe secondary source information on reception. Instead of the time wasted in the AfD and now here, efforts should be made to source that information. Show editors how referencing is done and get the ball rolling. Best,

1381:

I've seen this happen before. Someone fails to delete an article entirely, so they just erase the majority of it, and then try the "merge" thing. If you believe something shouldn't be in the article, discuss, don't do wide spread deletion.

1860:

is the latest version. there is an unwritten exception to the draconian notability guidelines for Character and episode. There is no consensus on this issue, despite editors alphabet soup acronyms which make it sound like there is.

1668:

Indeed, i.e. wrong about "notability." Verifiability and being referenced makes logical sense, but yeah, "notability" is anti-wikipedic. If we always went by "foundations" of things, God help where humanity would be today. Best,

1942:

Does everyone who said Merge, mean delete everything, and merge nothing? You know very well none of the information is going to be merged, as it won't fit there. And didn't this article already survive a nomination for deletion?

1453:

Just because you have a particular interpretation of that AfD debate and close doesn't mean that the article will remain in its current state. We are having a discussion right now, as suggested by the AfD, to merge this article.

1725: 1543:

Just because trivia isn't OR or unsourced doesn't mean that it's notable. No OR, well-sourced, and having well-sourced, non-OR real-world importance. Guess which one is the only one of these that establish notability? -

483: 1032:

And Smallman, expansion is the LAST thing we need to be worried about. A paragraph of good content is infinitely better than ten paragraphs of bad content. What needs pointing out? Everything - it lacks citations, it

1878:

Now, whether WP:FICT can be used ever and whether we should keep hilariously bad content is a set of two entirely different matters. I don't see where you got that one-time jokes are important to an article.

1477:

unless someone can provide a good reason why a bad (RS-, OR-, SS-, UNDUE-, WAF-violating) short article should stay around as a stand-alone article and why a merger would be bad. "But the AfD ended with a

1760: 766:

Well, the AfD said we need a merge discussion, and here it is. The pros for merging are that it has no assertion of notability, no references, and is very short. The cons are, well, none. -

989:

nature for other than main characters, or particularly well known secondary characters, and the effort to try will make fiction inclusionists ridiculous. The thing to do here is to write

1737:

If you aren't interested in the information, then you aren't likely to find your way to the article to begin with. What seems like "fancruft" to some, is interesting reading to others.

1199:

to the list of characters. The AfD close (a NAC, btw) said that we may discuss a merger but that the closer didn't want to force one through the AfD process. Ikip is correct that this

1082:

is a serious problem. Writing articles based entirely on primary sources means in practice that anything that happens on a TV show can be logged on Knowledge, no matter how trivial. /

1887: 1682: 1657: 1618: 1578: 1548: 1520: 1042: 965: 907: 865: 839:

This article simply needs to be expanded. Some content was deleted and should be restored. I would also like to point out that it was Retro Hippie who removed some of the content.

770: 744: 1678:"Clearly notable by any logical standard." Funny how notability is important initially, but when it become obvious that it isn't notable, you go on an anti-notability crusade. - 1730:

Please state your opinion, if you believe the article is fine in its much reduced state, or should it be left longer. At least three of us seem to want it in its longer form.

477: 156: 63: 666: 2007: 1884: 1679: 1654: 1615: 1575: 1545: 1517: 1039: 962: 904: 862: 767: 741: 672: 715: 530: 1921:, so I won't merge the reception info of the action figures either. Nevertheless, everyone is free to check the page history for potentially merge-worthy bits. 903:

The very notion that it may bias anyone toward or against anything is absurd, and if it didn't have any potential to distract participants you wouldn't care. -

561:

I suggest that it go the other way ... I've already updated list of characters (see below) to point to this new page, and plan to move stuff here from there. --

1129:

is a keep. In the AfD I was told there is no need to open an AfD to merge, and that it is very important not to abuse the AfD process in this fashion—and I'm

1595: 176: 67: 620:

and the posts about the Brown family and Tom Tucker ... this is Too Broad an issue to be handled by one individual, or several working at cross purposes! --

613:

is the way to go (combining his wives and son on one page) because it would follow the pattern of other characters ... but it needs to be discussed first!!

2047: 1048: 871: 2012: 1243:- I would support a merge here. There is no need to have both a list and this article. As mentioned above, there is really not much content here anyhow. 1014:. This article needs expansion as it is one of the problems you have cited for it. Perhaps you can point out what this article needs and help improve it. 643: 621: 562: 1688: 1673: 1663: 1647: 1624: 1603: 1584: 1568: 1554: 624: 2052: 2017: 1638: 1910:

It's been four days now, discussion has grown stale, and there is still no established notability. The personality traits of the characters seem like

971: 750: 1176:

and what seems to be a conflation of keep = history keep = merge, which I see as sloppy. I see a few comments mentioning the fact that it was a NAC.

1151: 580: 1893: 913: 895: 802: 646: 1324:

Purported intent notwithstanding, I don't think the "procedural keep" is effectively different from a "consensual keep"—editors treat this like a

848: 565: 2022: 374: 229: 657:

I'm gonna take that down based on the fact that this has never been stated. If its been in an episode and I just missed it, please let me know.

1976: 1966: 1905: 1816: 1848: 1800: 1778: 1463: 1448: 1419: 1173: 1145: 1094: 1929: 594: 1870: 834: 1591: 1367: 1356: 1160: 1023: 1005: 2057: 2027: 2062: 2032: 1997: 1890: 1685: 1660: 1621: 1581: 1551: 1523: 1319: 1045: 968: 942: 910: 868: 773: 747: 694: 684: 639: 589: 549: 409: 220: 200: 2002: 1221:

seems reasonable, since there isn't much to this article. Articles for Simpsons characters would be a good example to follow, imho.

956: 498: 2067: 1526: 465: 2042: 2037: 1824:. The cleaned-up state is preferable, and more up to Knowledge policy. In the event this character inspires something notable in 1425:

sentence. And I don't think a vote to Keep, means erasing 90% of the article, otherwise there isn't much left to keep is there?

776: 961:

Well, I'm sorry that mediocrity isn't praised. Edgarde was not nice in pointing out that the article was poorly made! Shaame. -

756: 599: 1482:" is a very poor reason to keep the article around, as it doesn't aid improvement, and doesn't even acknowledge that a merger 811:

If someone erased 90% of the content on other character articles, you could probably fit them all on one character page list.

415: 313: 117: 121: 1574:

matter of hours", a matter of days passed and not one person in support of the article bothered to do anything for it. -

1405: 1262: 711: 1342: 1339: 1337: 1190: 1119: 808: 635: 575: 555: 459: 360: 1720: 1538: 1494: 761: 1508: 1282: 1254: 1235: 1213: 1185: 1168:

Is there any interest in having an uninvolved admin review the close (overturn, clarify, or endorse) or taking it to

661: 1856:

the word "fancruft" is considered a personal attack. Character and episode arguments have been going on since 2004,

734: 304: 268: 1300: 455: 1832:

at this time, and doesn't merit a standalone article. This seems unlikely to change. Puffing up the article with

861:

ask, why is it that the only time anyone cares about the article when it's at risk of being merged or deleted? -

429: 104: 58: 1313:

keep. The former doesn't preclude a merge discussion; in fact, it does the opposite and encourages it instead.

434: 350: 1844: 1534:

this unoriginal research backed by reliable sources. Clearly notable by any logical standard. Sincerely, --

1352: 1278: 1258: 1141: 1090: 938: 505: 404: 630:

OK ... I've done the move and delete from the two article, now for the Moby Merge ... this stub was full of

1332:

on "procedural" grounds realize they are obstructing any possible merge or redirect. In this article, even

33: 395: 1169: 526: 809:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tom_Tucker_(Family_Guy)&diff=273264966&oldid=272186849

617: 471: 113: 1561: 228:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

439: 354: 1516:. No demonstration and notability, and close was night invalid - closer wasn't even an admin. - 21: 1250: 1115: 1019: 844: 39: 785:"The result was Keep whether or not to merge can be discussed at a more appropriate venue." 166: 1716:, merger possible by interested parties. See the related arguments in the thread below. – 519: 8: 720: 652: 385: 687:

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

1828:, this would be a good starting point on which to build. However, this character lacks 1809: 1181: 543: 400: 1841: 1796: 1634: 1459: 1415: 1349: 1275: 1231: 1209: 1138: 1110:

The result of the afd was keep. If you do not agree with the results, open a new afd.

1087: 935: 381: 296: 725:

Isn't it canon that Jake Tucker has no anus? I can't believe I typed that sentence.

683:

when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an

1944: 1875:

I consider "the" a personal attack, so anyone who says it will be blocked. Capisce?

1738: 1426: 1383: 1245: 1111: 1015: 840: 812: 730: 225: 96: 491: 1769: 1126: 707: 572: 552: 309: 312:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can 1866: 1857: 1833: 1829: 1296: 1079: 1011: 952: 919: 891: 798: 680: 882:

please strike out: "the AfD said we need a merge discussion," using <s: -->

1991: 1973: 1926: 1902: 1825: 1813: 1717: 1670: 1644: 1600: 1565: 1535: 1491: 1177: 1130: 1001: 923: 676: 610: 1915: 1918: 1911: 1837: 1787: 1774: 1630: 1504: 1455: 1411: 1363: 1345: 1315: 1271: 1222: 1205: 1156: 1134: 1083: 1076: 931: 658: 631: 947:

Why not just call other editors contributions "shit" or "crap"? Typical.

886:

I am very concerned that this discussion started on a blatant falsehood.

726: 308:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge articles about 1075:

Not sure what "Remember WP:Calm" is supposed to mean here, but lack of

290: 1726:

How many people believe we should keep the "fancruft" as some call it?

1862: 1292: 948: 887: 794: 109: 679:, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the 212: 194: 146: 996: 90: 80: 52: 700:

That this article is linked to from the image description page.

697:

on the image's description page for the use in this article.

280: 262: 1204:

standalone article (Basically per my comments at the AfD).

1133:

this wasn't just some dissembling partisan foot dragger. /

793:"the AfD said we need a merge discussion" as it is untrue. 108:, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to 857:

Well, most of it was deleted because most of it was fluff.

112:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can

595:

List_of_characters_from_Family_Guy#Channel_5_.28WQHG.29

490: 116:

the article attached to this page, help out with the

1917:

looks like a fansite that doesn't seem to pass as a

930:

as a subject has been (or could be) demonstrated. /

918:

Smallman12q: the deleted content was just a load of

667:

Image copyright problem with Image:Mother-tucker.jpg

345: 286: 224:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 86: 1891: