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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete. --Cirt (talk)06:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terry (Fawlty Towers) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log)

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

This character is non-notable, not being discussed "direclty and in detail" by multiple reliable sources, as stipulated byWP:SIGCOV. Thereasoning behind the removal of the PROD-tag is especially flawed: "a simple Google search indicates this to have been a real character and to have been played by that actor" seems to fly againstWP:ITEXISTS andWP:GHITS, while, "This article is also linked to by about 20 or 30 other articles, which also speaks against deletion," (technically true, but only because of it being linked to in a navbox) is essentially aWP:POPULARPAGE violation.╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢09:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there were only a few characters in the series - maybemerge but I do note the parent article is already 50 kb and could feasible be bigger. Yes we have to find some sources. My "keep" vote is on the premise that they exist.Casliber (talk·contribs)10:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you maybe provide links to or ISBNs of reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this character?╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢10:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe later. Possibly within seven days.Casliber (talk·contribs)10:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if you can't back up your (seemingly random) guess that the subject is notable – ie. that multiple reliable sources discuss Terry the chef directly and in detail – then your !vote is essentiallyWP:ITSNOTABLE. If I may just quote from that essay: "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as towhy the subject may not be notable [...] Just as problematic is asserting that somethingis notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability."╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢10:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Better than, "It can't be notable if I can't find it in 4 seconds on a Google search"....Casliber (talk·contribs)11:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Thank you for assuming a high level of cluelessness and laziness on my part, but I'm sorry to disappoint you by declaring that I have researched the issue in considerably more depth than a 4-second (or even a 5-second) Google search. For instance, I have examined as many of theGoogle Scholar hits which my university library online thingy enables me to, and do not find significant coverage. Many articles are actually referring toTerry Jones, basically a search-engine problem!, but most others merely mention Terry in passing, often in simple plot-descriptions, eg. "Terry the chef is rushing off for his latest karate lesson..." EvenFawlty Towers: Fully Booked (considered to be the most comprehensive publication about the sitcom) contains only the barest of references to the character, along the lines of, "Terry the chef has got a 'karate' lesson with a tall blonde Finnish woman."
  So yourbaseless aspersions on mysearch for sources are incorrect. It would be nice if you retracted them, though I doubt that's even a remote possibility.
  I can only re-iterate that if you cannot provide any specific information to substantiate your claim that the subject is notable, then your argument is a textbookone to avoid, and that's all there is to it.╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Congrats, so it took you about 3 minutes and 45 seconds rather than 4 seconds. Well done. I'll wait till I go to the library.Casliber (talk·contribs)

  May I ask what, "So it took you about 3 minutes and 45 seconds," actually means? I just clearly explained the research I've done. As an allegedly senior member of the community, I'd have thought you'd at least attempt to behave rather better than this.╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Update - looks like some books on Fawlty Towers are at the uni library, so I might stop by and pick them up tomorrow. Unless anyone else has them on their shelf and can add anything beforehand.Casliber (talk·contribs)11:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That was 6 days ago, where are all the sources on which your keep vote was premised? I suppose this is why we should probably not vote based on imaginary sources, because it makes you look pretty dumb when the sources turn out to be... well... imaginary.—SW— ^communicate14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (sigh) Yes it was. Unfortunately real life intervened on Thursday last and my free time evaporated. Ditto Tuesday(It is only convenient on those two days). I should be able to get there tomorrow, not that I am overly enamoured spending an hour of my life fetching sources from a library for this. Snottywong, tacking onad hominem aspersions are not a particularly good idea if you want to show folks amature side of yourself in the future but if it makes you feel better/gets it out of your system right now then good luck with that.Casliber (talk·contribs)09:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments on the talkpage when I removed theWP:PROD tag. I acknowledge the nominator's concerns, but as I say on the talkpage,at worst why not justmerge and redirect toFawlty_Towers#Other_regular_characters_and_themes? I don't involve myself much with these TV show type articles, so don't know the usual treatment of such things (and I'm happy to say he's not a key character), but for heaven's sake compared to many other junk articles around, it's this sort of radical deletionism that's driving away many contributors from WP. Why bother deleting when it's so simple just to make it a redirect? Or do you want to delete that section out of the Fawlty Towers article as well 'for lack of sources'? Give me a break. --jjron (talk)13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please substantiate the 'keep' part of your !vote by listing a number of reliable sources which cover Terry directly and in detail, as perWP:ITSNOTABLE? Thanks.╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.—• Gene93k (talk)13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Delete (with aWP:HEY standard of someone actually coming up with sources instead of just asserting them). I've made an effort to look for sources but I haven't been able to find anything. I'm not hopeful either, since whilst I'm a fairly big fan of Fawlty Towers, I had to look up who he was and I'm fairly sure he only had 20 or 30 lines in the entire run. I'm not expecting more than a footnote in "Cockneys in 1970s British Television".Bob House 884 (talk)13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced, no content except an OR character description. Nothing of value in this article; nothing even worth merging.Fut.Perf.☼07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- It's useless to assert without proof that theremust be sources out there somewhere, particularly when others have looked and found nothing. This article failsWP:N andWP:V because it is totally unsourced and therefore contains no preservable content.Reyk_YO!14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fictional character that does not meet thegeneral notability guideline. Additionally, the article is aplot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context and lacksreliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume any kind of notability. With noverifiability, the article isoriginal research and an unneededcontent fork.Jfgslo (talk)22:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 5 years and it's still an unsourced stubby article consisting of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and original research (WP:OR). Nothing that couldn't fit in a character list likeFawlty_Towers#Characters already accomplishes. Clear-cut decision. –sgeureka^t•c09:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete asWP:CRUFT with no outside notability.Qworty (talk)22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect toFawlty_Towers#Characters.Sergeant Cribb (talk)19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks OK to me.Flying Fische (talk)19:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOREASON.╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  thx. I have my reasons: Important character in an important TV show thing.Flying Fische (talk)19:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think that the article meets ourgeneral notability guideline, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, and if so, how?╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, basically. that's why I voted keep?Flying Fische (talk)19:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me repeat my second question:...and if so how? If you do not want your!vote to beignored by the administrator who closes this discussion, you arerequired to explain your position.╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well you could say the same thing about the nomination? Why would my vote count and not yours? That'sdisenfranchisement.Flying Fische (talk)19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  OK.╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Might want to read up onWP:NOTVOTECarl Sixsmith (talk)20:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWP:CRUFTCarl Sixsmith (talk)20:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; second choicemerge. TreasuryTag is perseverating again, with his argumentative responses to every comment made. He really should try to keep away from the XfD pages for awhile for his own well-being.Newyorkbrad (talk)17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOREASON at best, very nearly atWP:ADHOM level. I should also point out for those who haven't observed this obvious fact that the allegation that I am providing "argumentative responses to every comment made" is simply untrue.╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢17:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You'veliterally responded argumentatively to every Keep comment made. I admit you haven't argued with the Delete comments. Honestly, I seriously question your sense of perspective. To avoid monopolizing the discussion, I will now leave this page.Newyorkbrad (talk)17:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair the keep !votes have been "Yes we have to find some sources. My "keep" vote is on the premise that they exist.", "Google search shows many sources that indicate this to have been a real character", "seems OK to me" and "Keep; second choicemerge" Personally I think it might be best just to have some faith in the closing admin.Bob House 884 (talk)18:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Barringsignificant coverage in their own right, I'd rather minor characters like this were just mentioned/described on the show's article, if at all.66.220.144.74 (talk)19:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ormerge: PerNewyorkbrad above. --MZMcBride (talk)19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, ordelete without prejudice against recreation when themain article's state makes it reasonable to applyWP:Summary style in this way. With the poor content in this article this is currently not the case, and there is no other reason to cover the main character separately from the series. Maybe one could sort of establish "independent" notability, but I would consider thatpointy as it would be in support of totally unnecessary bad article organisation at this point.HansAdler19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would establishing notability be disruptive?Sergeant Cribb (talk)19:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it's not even clear how notability of the character can be distinguished from notability of the series, I would consider it to be wikilawyering. And it would just be for the purpose of having another unpromising stub lying around in article space. We are writing an encyclopedia. We are not stamp collectors who are trying to tick off as many potential article titles as possible in a catalogue. This material would make sense in the main article or in a list of Fawlty Towers characters, but the topic cannot sustain a reasonably deep article on its own and fortunately we don't have to live with the problem as there are better alternatives. (Of course I am assuming that there aren't several books that have a chapter each on the character.)HansAdler19:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly possible that any particular fictional character might be notable independently of the creative work they're found in. Many are -- this one probably is not, at least at present. But I don't see "bad article organisation" as a weighty argument for or against.Sergeant Cribb (talk)19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ormerge: PerNewyorkbrad andFlying Fische above.R. Baley (talk)19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pretty simple decision to be made here. Do reliable sources exist? No? Ok, then delete. Wow, is that all there is to it? Yup. That's amazing.—SW— ^chat14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or possibly merge) Significant character in major series is sufficient. "direclty and in detail" are not exact terms, and there is I think no consensus to apply them strictly in this area. In any case, there is no possible justification against merging, since the sources for the character are certainly good enough for WP:V. . I note that many comments above are rather weekly provided with rationales, and to oppose keep comments on that basis is a little absurd. I take a comment on either side without rationale to mean, broadly, I agree with the preceding arguments for this point of view. As we don't vote in any exact numerical sense, this doesn't definitively determine the issue, but we do decide on how literally to apply guidelines on general consensus, not admin whim, and such a comment at least partially indicates consensus. Otherwise, you know, I could wait out debates like this where i have an opinion and instead write a closing explaining why all the arguments on one side were weak--whichever side it was I personally supported. I'm not saying any actual admin does thing this cynically at present, because all of us in general do pay some respect at least to consensus. DGG ( talk)03:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear, I have no prejudice against a merge. The question here is 'should Terry the chef, a bit character from Fawlty Towers, have his own article?', and I don't think he should. The secondary question, 'should he be mentioned on the list of Fawlty Towers characters?' is so obvious that I didn't bother to answer it, whether this is done by a strict 'merge' or new text is pretty much a non-issue, especially seeing as themain article already appears to contain more information than the article we're considering merging.Bob House 884 (talk)09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nosignificant coverage in reliable sources. There's plenty of information about him in other articles. --Anthem of joy (talk)14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on civility RE:Treasury Tag I find TreasuryTag's comments in this AFD rather curt, unfriendly, rude and even uncivil. I see this is the case a couple of times for this AFD. Asking one user for ISBN numbers, telling another that they must answer his/her questioning otherwise their vote won't be counted by the closing administrator. Chasing one editor(diff link) across Wikipedia to berate them with a hostile 'Welcome to Wikipedia' message instead of discussing the issue here where it arose.

AlsoTreasury Tag'sWikilawyering is almost unbearable. Rather than communicating in English he or she links to a section of one article. What's worse is the article that he or she points to is an essay (not necessarily a Wikipedia policy) likeWP:ITSNOTABLE, andWP:NOREASON. I don't think this sort of behaviour is good for Wikipedia, it doesn’t move us forward, it only antagonises people.TehGrauniad (talk)00:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah yes. What to do. Well, you can ask him nicely to desist from what you see as problem behaviour, and then maybe take a look at his talk page history to see if you're the second or subsequent person to ask him something along these lines, and if you think the behaviour is continuing, then there is aprocess for this, but yes, getting inthe Last Word is...erm....not conducive to constructive dialogue. And it has beendiscussed before.Casliber (talk·contribs)02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: will try to get to the library now.Casliber (talk·contribs)02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect toFawlty_Towers#Other_regular_characters_and_themes, without deleting the history. There's really no reason to ever delete an article like this when there is a clearly notable target. I would say merge, but it appears the content already is present at that article. Redirect, and if additional sources emerge, break it back out. No admin tools needed here at all.Xymmax^{So let it be written}_{So let it be done}03:23, 26 May 2011 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.