Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authority figures in comedy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -Splashtalk 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Authority figures in comedy
Shows no useful information M2K 16:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand - this article is the result of a merge of individual articles on specific types of authority figures in comedy, mandated by a previous AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedy police. BD2412 T 16:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per BD2412. Xoloz 16:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research unless good, verifiable sources are provided prior to expiration of AfD. We need a source for stock figures of authority characters being a recognized and historic element of comedy. That shouldn't be hard to provided, but it hasn't been provided. And we need sources for the cited examples, e.g. a source that says the teachers in Animal House are, in fact, good examples of the recognized phenomenon of "authority figure in comedy." And please don't say that the works themselves are the sources, since the screenplay of "Animal House" does not say anything about "authority figures in comedy," and different individuals viewing the same movie could well differ in their opinions and interpretations. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if sources were found, the article would still be a steaming pile of crap. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep. It looks like that those who voted "delete" have to learn how to use google. There are tall heaps of material around (google: ["authority figures" + comedy]). No way the article is original research. The topic has been researched thousends of times. Although at the moment the article is kind of crappy, but many think the whole wikipedia is of comparable quality, with rare exceptions. mikka (t) 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Per the verifiability policy, linked at the bottom of every edit box, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material." If you are an "editor who wishes to include the material," then please put some references to those "heaps of material" into the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Per the verifiability policy, linked at the bottom of every edit box, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you may delete it or move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}". Obviously some people prefer shoot from the biggest gun available. Well, they have right to. mikka (t) 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Per the verifiability policy, linked at the bottom of every edit box, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material." If you are an "editor who wishes to include the material," then please put some references to those "heaps of material" into the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete this and no different than many of the 100 articles in category:comedy. Given the 1,000s of articles here on comedic films or actors, it would be helpful for our readers to understand the various aspects of comedy. On a side note, I think Mr./Ms. Brian Crawford Nancy Grace would be better off saving the steaming piles of his/her wit for a blog or some other outlet where it might be acceptable. Wikipedia is not a forum for mindless vulgarities and attacks. -- JJay 22:32, 26 March 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.
