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 merge to List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros.. Can of course be spun out again if additional sources for notability are uncovered. Not enough here at the moment, though. Black Kite 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete White[edit]

Pete White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Non-notable bit character in The Venture Bros. whos article consists of original research and unsubstantiated claims. Basically a fanpage. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to an appropraite character list. Edward321 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for now. Better to add citations than to give up on the article.Bjones (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim to any sourced info and Merge. Article has more text than the character has ever uttered on the show. Abductive (reasoning) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not delete something as "non-notable" and certainly not that which is verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We certainly do delete things for not being notable. Also, regarding your link to the Google News search: Mere mention in passing does not confer notability. Which of those sources are critical commentary or analysis of the character sufficient to confer notability? (that the character exists is not at issue, that it is a notable character... is at issue) The article as it stands as of this edit is completely unreferenced and therefore does not support notability assertions. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. This article clearly covers a notable character to at worst warrant a redirect or merge per WP:PRESERVE. There is nothing libelous or hoax-esque about the article that requires an outright redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We delete things for not being notable. You need to internalise that, asserting that we do not delete things for lack of notability is arrant nonsense. I found no signs of notability in my spot checking sufficient to pass a reasonable test. You assert notability but just giving a google search doesn't prove it. Find, and add, the specific cites that demonstrate it. Those would be critical commentary or actual news about the character (such as licensing deals, promotional tours, a significant fan base that makes the news) rather than just passing mention. I have more ghits (5680) than this character does (3140) using direct searches (granted I only have 1/5 as many using news searches), yet I am not notable. Hits mean nothing. You need to examine the results and find items that assert notabiity as defined. Or stop berating everyone for pointing out that something isn't notable. That's getting quite tiresome. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The results are suficiently persuasive that the subject is verified through multiple reliable sources and is from a recognizable, multiseason show, ergo it is notable by any reasonable definition of the term and at worst at least so as to justify a merge or redirect even as the article contains no dangerous content that needs to be removed from the public's eyes for legal reasons. Too often a minority of accounts make these same ciopy and paste style declarations that something is "not notable" without discussing any actual source searches and that is indeed tiresome. Volunteers contributed to building this and other articles. At least give them the courtesy of explaing specifically what more the article needs and where you looked per WP:BEFORE to see if such improvements are likely. I care far more about encouraging those who are helping to improve the actual articles than giving any legitimacy to posts that do not reflect or discuss any specifics concerning the specific article under consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please name your reliable sources. I see none in the article yet... you haven't shown that "den of geek" is at all reliable, it looks like a blog to me. You can't assert reliability, you have to show it. And stop berating me. Spend your time improving the article or making valid arguments about deletion instead of berating others. ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Berating the lone editor in the discussion who actually found and added a source to the article when your "vote" is to simply repeat what someone else said litterally word for word and then to harangue the sole editor in the discussing actually improving the article is telling. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, unsourced original research. Article comprised of plot regurgitation and trivia. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, unsourced original research. Article comprised of plot regurgitation and trivia. Wikipedia is not a fansite. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reluctant to respond to such a copy and paste post, but since you replied to my post above and seem to want to engage with me, I have to ask, you seriously could not come up with your own words? And actually, Wikipedia IS a fansite to the countless volunteers who offer their time to help build this project. These editors grow over time and maybe eventually will work on the articles you do happen to care about and even if not, we are all volunteers. So long as the content is fixable as this content surely is, so be it. Claiming to delete, rather than improve, because an article is unsourced is downright ridiculous. Should we have deleted rather than improved Sarah Palin when it looked like this? Now I am not suggesting White is as world significant as Palin, but most of articles start out and remain in poor shape for a while until someone comes along and fixes them. Instead of supporting a Wiki of useless deletion discussions, why not support a Wiki of articles that at least matter to someone? Potential matters more than the current state and if our article has potential or at least has a redirect location, then that is the route we take. I really would like to assume good faith with you, but given our recent run ins elsewhere, showing up here with a literal copy and paste unoriginal argument strikes anyone as just trying to needlessly enflame things once again. Why not instead show us all how it is done and do what you can to improve this article, work with us, and then after we actually have exhausted all avenues of improvement, discuss what to do? Deletion is a last, not first resort, and it is anti-wikipedic to go down that road before even attempting to do something for the article under discussion. Even when I argue to delete as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unforgivable Journey, I still make some effort to improve something in the actual article and I certainly do not just copy and paste someone else's comments. This particular content is verfiable and unquestionably notable. Give the readers what they want, not what a minority of editors don't. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • tl;dr but your analysis is seriously flawed. Answered above, as far as notability goes. Show that this character is notable using accepted metrics. Don't ask others to do the work for you, do it yourself. Don't berate people for how they choose to spend their time, it's not my job to save your area of interest's articles. As for "run ins"... you bring those on yourself. Take the advice given you about how to comport yourself and how to make effective contributions to XfDs on board. Or find somewhere else to contribute, because your current approach is lacking. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are neither willing to read the full comments in a discussion nor assist in trying to improve the articles under discussion, I encourage you then to instead find somewhere to contribute where you are willing to do so, because your current approach is neither fully imformed nor helpful in finding the best means to make use of this content per WP:PRESVERE. Just because you are unwilling to use your time to help out here does not mean you should try to prevent others from doing so. Please be considerate of what your fellow editors volunteer their time for. Thanks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh I read it. It's just too long, too repetitive, and too devoid of anything in conformance with policy. You deride my participation, but my help' here consists of keeping you honest, something that appears to be a very needful thing given your repeated refusal to avoid berating other participants for how they choose to contribute. Internalize that insufficient notability is an eminently valid reason for deletion. Internalize that you need to SHOW notability, not just assert it. Internalize that pointing to Google searches is not sufficient, you have to actually find sources in the searches and add them. And then, actually do it. If you spent more time adding sources and less time giving other people a hard tome about how they participate in discussions the articles would be better, and so would the discussions. The "neither fully imformed nor helpful" person at many AFD discussions lately... is you. I call you on it at a few, but for the most part you're getting away with it. That has to stop. ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You come to this discussion merely copying and pasting someone else's needlessly aggresive words (bringing up the specter of vomiting with "regurgitate" when in truth all of our articles essentially repeat information found elsewhere; dismissing the article as a "fansite"...not exactly the way to encourage editors) and then berate the one editor in this discussion who actually finds and adds sourced content to the discussion. That speaks for itself. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and consider a merge as usual for subsidiary characters. The original article was excessive; removing it is excessive. There is such an obvious way of dealing with these that I think arguments to delete instead of efforts to find a suitable merge are unconstructive. The continual use of them seems an attempt to sabotage chances of arriving at compromise. As consensus in this will inevitably be a compromise, I am coming close to considering these AfDs as abusive of our processes. Since a redirect will always be warranted, a motion to delete altogether without a reason why it would be inappropriate is hard to interpret in any other sense DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is the right answer here, there is so much irrelevant and unsourced material that needs to go, it far outweighs the mention of the character's existence and a few lines of description that the character's notability merits here. But that said, I'm not opposed to a merge. And if you can figure out how to get merges to happen in advance of noms, without all the drama that ensues at AfDs, great. But as long as AfDs get started, as they do, someone needs to keep those who don't understand notability and how to establish it honest. At least some of the time. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A section on the show article should be sufficient for this character, enough reliable references (aside from fanzines/fansites) don't appear to exist to make this a substantial and referenced stand-alone article. Nathan ^T 02:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gets Google News hits and again, no reason not at worst redirect. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I've never done anything notable in the Wikipedia sense in my life, but I get about as many Google News hits as "Pete White" +Venture. I don't think the "Google Test" establishes notability, nor do all hits on Google News (or any, in this case) constitute substantive coverage of the subject searched. Nathan ^T 03:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The character gets quite high marks in such reviews as the one I cite here, but anyway per WP:PRESERVE and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, there's just no urgent need to redlink in this case. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same Google test establishes that there are quite a few semi-notable Pete White's in the world - actual people, as opposed to minor fictional characters. I'm not sure the best use of the "Pete White" pagename is as a redirect to a section on this character; perhaps the rescue work could focus on discovering that best use, and then provide a hatnote on the resulting article? Nathan ^T 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable suggestion. If you have a recommendation on what real person could be more deserving of this main article, please let us know and if I can help with such an article, I of course will. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep or merge to List of characters from The Venture Bros.. Has one reference, more would move it more into keep territory. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one source given is to a site with a very low Alexa rank that gets almost 5% of its inbound traffic from Wikipedia. When using critical sites to confer notability, the site itself needs to be notable. Which I'm not clear this site is. using the Google News test some favour, it has less hits than the article subject, none of which appear to be themselves conferring any notability. If Den of Geek were considered as an article it would be a clear delete. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is one source added, but one of many sources available. And again, still NO reason presented as to why further improvements should not be made. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • By all means, go ahead and add a source that establishes notability. That wasn't it, though. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article now has information verified by at least two reliable sources, i.e. enough per any reasonable definition of the elitist, subjective, and anti-wikipedic concept of "notability." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Name calling, are we? That new source establishes the existence of the character, (which was never in dispute) but since its about the voice actor, and barely mentions the character in passing, does little to confer notability. It's a better source than the blog (though why you added it twice instead of just using the same ref label for both to avoid dups is beyond me, I fixed it for you: [1]) but it's not a source that confers much (if any) notability. Need critical analysis of the character or significant mentions in news of the character to confer notability. Sorry. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List_of_secondary_characters_from_The_Venture_Bros.. I think the article is still at least one good source (that speaks about the character) short of a keep; in the absence of such the sourced/non-OR content can be merged over to the list article. The history should be preserved within the redirect in the event that sources that reflect Wikipedia notability are produced. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, trivia-inviting fanpage with no real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (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.