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.

Once I discounted the comments that either boiled down to accusations of bad-faith on the part of the nominator, or assertions along the lines of "It is interesting", "It is useful", "It is popular", or "I like it", only Peregrine Fisher, John Z and DHowell actually referred to sources that they felt established notability. Since these comments were outweighed by those feeling that the article failed our notability policy, I think this has to be a Delete Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - After the close above, closer Tim Vickers agreeded to let the article be merged instead of deleted.[1] A. Nobody then merged the material.[2] The merge is identified in the history of List of problems solved by MacGyver by closer Tim Vickers.[3] -- Suntag ☼ 08:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of problems solved by MacGyver[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of problems solved by MacGyver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is not notable and is fancruft. There is solely an in universe context and no real world notability can be established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well did you nominate this article for deletion because you saw it on Digg or not? --Pixelface (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my !vote, Wikipedia articles use plot summaries in support of a topic as fleshed out by real-world context. This article does the opposite; real-world context was provided (probably to rescue the article from previous AfDs) to support all this plot detail. I think that the real-world context that was added was misapplied and merging the information to the main article should suffice, especially with the one external link detailing MacGyverisms off-wiki. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the article has been nominated for AfD before is irrelevant. Consensus can change over time. The first AfD was to keep, while the second afD had no consensus, defaulting to keep. Who knows? The outcome of this AfD may be to delete. I would encourage a stronger argument than the fact it's been up for AfD before. The system is clearly designed for an article to be renominated. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't a reason to keep. It's part WP:NOREASON and part "It was nominated before and it was kept." That's not a reason. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macgyver problem solving in my opinion can stand on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect plot detail; see WP:PLOT. We strive to be an encyclopedia by providing real-world context about a topic, only including plot summaries to complement the topic. This article is by no means a summary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the MacGyver's problem-solving is central to the TV series, but this does not permit an indiscriminate collection of plot detail. The real-world context of MacGyverisms can be merged to the main article, and a few examples can reflect the topic, but not every single problem he's solved in the TV series. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth reading WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING. AfD is not a democracy where the popular vote triumphs; arguments must be grounded in policies and guidelines and not personal opinions of interest and usefulness. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This needs to go on deletionpedia for eternal preservation. -72.93.211.14 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they are interested in plot detail, the primary sources are not beyond their reach. Wikipedia is not intended as a substitute to watching the TV series. For fictional topics, it covers real-world context, and it can be complemented by select plot detail, not every single problem solved by MacGyver. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia is constantly changing, and articles that are solely made up of plot detail continue to go out the window. You are arguing for the importance of MacGyverisms, and I don't think anyone disputes this; see MacGyver#MacGyverisms. This, however, does not merit an indiscriminate collection of plot detail. Plot detail needs to complement real-world context in a limited fashion, not the other way around. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a desire to delete? Can you elaborate on what you mean by not being encyclopedic? It would help build consensus for how to deal with this article, using policies and guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked WP:FANCRUFT and will quote from the very first sentence "importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". I find it hard to argue that this article qualified in any way. MacGyver and specifically his resourcefulness have become well known in general society to the point where "MacGuyver" is ofent used as a verb and is understood by people who have never even seen the show. Raitchison (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean best at unconventional articles? I think a better example would be the recent Featured Article of the Day, Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. This particular article is solely lacking in real-world context, being entirely composed of plot detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fancruft is just a coarse word for an overabundance of plot detail. If we cited instances of what happened in the series, we are still using primary sources and still skimping on real-world context. The AfD has nothing to do with the instances being unsourced; it has to do with the fact that the article's primary goal is to convey plot detail, not to provide real-world context about the given topic. The TV series in general and MacGyverisms are notable, both being covered at MacGyver. This does not permit one to go on at length about the in-universe ongoings of a TV series. We have an external link that we can point to for a collection of MacGyverisms off-wiki. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. A real Wikipedia article about MacGyverisms would explore what writers had to do to come up with new MacGyverisms every episode, how realistic the MacGyverisms are, how the MacGyverisms served as a source of inspiration, how MacGyverisms have permeated themselves in various media, et cetera. This does not mean it's OK to indiscriminately collect plot detail. Plot detail is meant to complement real-world context, like the various points I suggested. (And man, am I tired of making counter-arguments, haha.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting is not an argument to keep, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. People can appreciate things like manuals, guides, and textbooks, but Wikipedia doesn't present these to people. It provides encyclopedic coverage of a given topic, and per WP:PLOT, plot details are meant to complement the real-world context of a fictional topic. As you can tell from this article, it is more plot detail than it is real-world context. Articles need to be written in accordance to policies and guidelines. Topics can be interesting and appeal to a wide number of people as long as they are in accordance, but this article clearly is not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you find other articles that you think fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are welcome to nominate them for AfD. There have been a number of articles full of plot detail, but they can wind up getting deleted if they lack merit. For this article, I don't think anyone disputes that the TV show is notable and that MacGyverisms within them are notable. However, this does not suddenly make it OK to write nothing but plot detail in an article. We don't include plot detail because it's informative and useful on its own; we include plot detail to complement the real-world context of fictional topics. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that the article should be a guidebook instead of a real article, full of plot detail to theoretically educate readers to become students of the sciences? There are many resources of value in the world, but Wikipedia's goal is to provide encyclopedic articles, not guidebooks. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't more than just an encyclopedia. Its definition as an encyclopedia is one of the five pillars. It is not a collection of indiscriminate plot detail or a guidebook. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with a LiveJournal or website could recreate this info. Lots42 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that logic (super strict interpretation of WP:ENC as the exclusive domain of reality based subjects we could make a case for AfDing every article that has anything to do with any work of fiction. 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raitchison (talk • contribs)
Um, no... not even close. It's not "super-strict" in the slightest, and you absolutely could not make that case for any fiction-based article. I'm not sure how anyone who had actually read our policies could make such a bizarre argument. DreamGuy (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks like a great "Further reading" link to add to MacGyver. It can substitute all the indiscriminate plot detail gathered here. We could write at the "MacGyverisms" section, "In 2005, a book called The Unofficial MacGyver How-to Handbook was published, detailing the show's MacGyverisms." —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one way of looking at it, but I think Peregrine Fisher means it should be used as a reference for the article that is up for duscussion. - Mgm|(talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, the WP:NOT people have won me over. We should redirect to MacGyver. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear not all of those who believe the article should not be deleted are fans of the show in any way, personally I find the show unwatchable. However the resourcefulness demonstrated by MacGyver in the show transcends the show and as I have already mentioned has become a part of the fabric of society. The article is most definitely not Fancruft as per the very first sentence of WP:FAN and is also pretty clearly notable in general. Raitchison (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - yes fully accepted that not all those voting 'keep' are fans of the show. Springnuts (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything on Wikipedia is also hosted somewhere else. Why does it matter if a specialized wiki has some similar information? --Explodicle (T/C) 11:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case it matters because this content clearly does WP:NOT belong here. The incessant trivia nightmare on Wikipedia needs to stop. JBsupreme (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To which item on WP:NOT are you referring? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, WP:NOT a fan site, nor is it a place to regurgitate a long list of indiscriminate trivia ad nauseum. See the eloquent commentary from Erik below. Thanks! JBsupreme (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article solely consists of plot detail. It is completely indiscriminate in how it goes on and on about the events throughout this TV series and provides no real-world context. A "summary" would be identifying maybe a half dozen examples overall, and that would fit well in MacGyver#MacGyverisms. That does not excuse one to have an entire article, 70 kb in length, with nothing but plot detail from the TV series. We don't list every punchline from comedy sitcoms, we don't list every romance from soap operas, we don't list every technique used in a criminal investigation show, and so on. There should be select examples to reflect to readers the concept of MacGyverisms in summary fashion, but having an article with every single in-universe detail related to this topic is unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Feel that the article is relevant and valuable both in relation to the show MacGyver and in allowing users to gain an insight into what MacGyver is/does. AlbertSimon (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First discussion was in December 2006, quite a long time ago, and resulted in keep. Second discussion was in December 2007 and resulted in no consensus. Citing the earliest consensus while ignoring the previous one is misleading. Third time nomination is not disruptive; the ability to revisit consensus is built into the process. Disruption is nominating an article a month after the previous AFD. The last one was 11 months ago. Also, arguments for deletion have not solely been calling it fancruft; they have been more substantial than that or saying "just not notable". The article has too much indiscriminate plot detail where a limited selection in an article's section would adequately tell the reader what a MacGyverism may be. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A no consensus is a default to keep, which is why the article is still around. After two discussions have not closed as delete or merge or redirect, efforts should instead be made on improving the article in question and not just renominating it continuously until it gets deleted. The article is clearly discriminate. It cover a specific topic "problems" solved by a specific individual "MacGyver". Thus, it has two discriminating parameters for inclusion and because MacGyver is a notable show that has even been parodied on SNL and Family Guy with parodies focusing on the problem solving and his problem solving is arguably the most memorable aspect of that show, we can verify the items on this list. If you think a limited selection in a main article would be okay, then I see no reason why not to at worst merge and redirect there without deletinon. The nomination is pointed considering that it seems consistent with some kind of mission. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody disputes the existence of the TV series, the main character, and his common trait. This does not mean that there should be an entire article of every instance of his common trait. Plot detail needs to support real-world context, not the other way around, and the way the article is set up, there's no intended summary. Its full intention is to list as much plot detail about MacGyverisms as possible. If there was so-called "narrative complexity" that ties some elements together, that could be an argument. Each instance is as separate as they come. Attacking the nominator seems like a failure to assume good faith, too... we all have our missions, I'm sure, but since the nomination, multiple substantial viewpoints have weighed in, so it shows a credible discussion plenty of time after the previous AfD. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One does not have to assume when the nominator outright laughs at those arguing to keep. I do not see problem with listing things just as a list of Academy Award winners, table of the elements, etc. are supplements to the text of the main articles. This article I see serving two purposes. First, it is a spinoff or sub-article of the main article and provides those who want more detailed knowledge about the subject with a more extensive list of examples. Kind of like how the published Britannica have the Micropedias with the overviews, but the Macropedia books with the much more detailed coverage. Second, the article serves as a table of contents of sorts because it lists different problems solved that were solved in different episodes and thus can lead us to which episode each thing was solved. On another note, the article was viewed 42,000+ times last month alone. So, obviously a good deal of our readers come here looking for this kind of information and these readers become editors and donors. Because we can see that the article is not just total nonsense, there is no problem or libel or anything that I aware of, I would much rather allow such a large number of readers and editors to use this information for whatever they can than go with the handful that think it should be deleted as non-notable (which is subjective as it is obviously notable from the many keeps above and the readership and that is verifiable in published sources as well as the primary sources and because it has been parodied on multiple notable shows), as cruft (not a policy or guideline), as violating plot (which based on the talk page is also disputed), or as indiscriminate (as indicated in my earlier reply I think it has a clear criteria for inclusion that prevents the article from being infinite in coverage). Again, I judge these articles on what Wikipedia stands to gain or lose. If we keep this verifiable content, maybe we gain readers. Maybe we enhance our comprehensive nature. I see at least potential for positives. If we remove it, maybe we insult those who worked on it by using subjective claims of it's cruft or it's not notable that are not really rooted in policy as we failed to reach a consensus on fictional notability. If we remove it, it is not as if those who worked on it are suddenly going to decide to work on whatever articles those arguing to delete would rather they work on. So, I am just not seeing any benefit for our readership by not covering this article or again not at worst merging and redirecting without deletion so that we do at least have the foundation laid for when additional sources come along we do not have to just start over. Thus, by contrast I see more benefits than not. Anyway, absolutely no assertion of non-notability whatsoever. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 23:31, 25 November 2008 (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.
Category