Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Westphall

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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Westphall

NPOV, Original Research, trivial subject matter This unsigned AfD nomination was added by Sangrito (talk • contribs).

[edit] Reasons for Deletion

This article exhibits some fundamental and severe problems:

1) NPOV: While many articles that demonstrate POV issues can be successfully salvaged, the premise of the Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis (TWUH, for the sake of brevity) is itself a POV based on speculative interpretation.

2) Verifiability: Opinion cannot be verified. If the writers of every show mentioned in the article publicly agree that their shows were the figment of Tommy Westphall's imagination, I will support an article on the TWUH.

3) Triviality: Tommy Westphall is a minor character, not particularly worthy of a dedicated Wikipedia article. Tommy existed more or less as a foil for Donald Westphall, and although a recurring character, appeared in very few of the show's episodes. The bottom line here is that not every character appearing on every show merits an entry in Wikipedia. Any factual information can be merged with the main show article.

4) Fallacy: As pointed out on the discussion page, POV issues aside, the premise that the "universe" of any show that can be linked to St. Elsewhere is also the figment of an autistic boy's imagination is demonstrably false. Wikipedia is a work of non-fiction, so article should not depend upon a suspension of disbelief.

5) Original research: Another user has suggested that the contents of the article are based on a chapter from an existing book, although the original author never made any citations. I don't have access to that book, so I can't say rightly whether the article does or does not contain original research, but I invite more knowledgeable users to disucss the issue of original research here.

Sangrito 15:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Can't argue with any of that. Delete. -- GWO 16:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, that's a pretty air-tight case there... delete. -- Kicking222 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I will admit that the article has problems, i.e., it is not well written and needs to be seriously edited and rewritten, but I believe that the concept has merit. It needs to be rewritten to deal with the POV issue. But, no, one cannot verify opinion. What one can verify is that the opinion in question is widely held, and is not simply the product of the author's mind---and this is fairly easily done. Now, as to the hypothesis being a fallacy, I would argue that that point is specious. In as much as it is a discussion of a possibility (or a number of possibilities) in the context of a television show (and its "universe"), I would argue that it can neither be proven nor disproven. If one looks here (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~kwgow/crossovers.html) one will find a page dedicated to researching the subject, and wherein one will find an argument for the idea that not only is Tom Fontana (creator of "St. Elswhere") aware of the Tommy Westphal phenomenon, but he is actively seeking to expand the universe of shows related to it. As I said, keep the article, I believe it has merit as an interesting pop culture notion. --Charles 19:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, although his character wasn't significant to the storyline, it was significant to the ending of the series. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on the sole basis that the character wasn't that significant to the series -- NOT for the POV arguments stated above since this was not a hypothesis created by a Wikipedia editor. Also this should NOT be taken as any sort of support for deleting List of series connected to the Tommy Westphall Universe which I support keeping. Suggest merge any useful information into the list article. 23skidoo 02:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Tommy Westphall hypothesis is not original research, having been discussed on Usenet possibly as far back as 1996 [1] and definitely as far back as 1998 [2]. It has even been described in an article on the BBC web site from 2003 [3], which means it has a reliable source. The article is already written in a neutral point of view since opposing arguments are given reasonable space. While Tommy Westphall would not have merited a Wikipedia article of his own absent the final scene which gave rise to the hypothesis, the scene was indeed the ending of the St. Elsewhere series and the hypothesis inspired by the scene continues to be of interest to fans of television in connection with the large fictional universe which is connected to the show. See this Google search for examples. The point is not that we need to believe that Tommy Westphall imagined the entire series I Love Lucy (for example), just that the hypothesis under which he is assumed to have done so is notable -- and it is. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added some text to clarify that the hypothesis is an idea discussed by television fans, as opposed to an idea being espoused by this article, and added some representative citations. --Metropolitan90 08:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per comprehensive nomination. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, relatively noteworthy meme. If the list is deleted, do not merge it in without providing context or citations for each entry. -Sean Curtin 05:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't even watch TV, and I think it's at least as interesting as Jump the shark, Cousin Oliver, and Chuck Cunningham syndrome. It could probably stand to be cleaned up though. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is at best a speculative theory that gained notoriety BECAUSE it received a Wikipedia article. The sources given by Metropolitan90 are hardly convincing--the BBC article is a fluff piece that mentions the TWUH in passing; I sincerely hope that Wikipedia requires more of its sources than that. If the entire concept is unsourced and based on speculation rather than facts, there's no reason to devote an article to it. Croctotheface 08:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The BBC article was published in 2003, more than 2 years before this Wikipedia article was created (in June 2005). It's easy to find multiple blog entries about the main web site about the Tommy Westphall universe dating from 2004, and as indicated above the hypothesis was being discussed on Usenet in 1998, more than two years before Wikipedia was created. Thus, I don't see how the hypothesis's notoriety can be attributed to this Wikipedia article. I understand that you may consider the hypothesis unworthy of an encyclopedia entry on other grounds as well, but "gained notoriety because of the Wikipedia article" shouldn't be the reason for deletion in this particular case. --Metropolitan90 08:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and clearly highlights an important televisual phenomona. Ydam 16:34, 15 May 2006 (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.