Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric the Midget

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 was no consensus. Most of the STRONG KEEP!!! type comments were from single purpose accounts, and gave invalid reasons for keeping. The delete comments were mostly from more experienced users, however did not really cite much of an argument, so it's no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric the Midget

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Eric the Midget (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Somewhat of another Brian Peppers-like article. Violates WP:BLP quite severely and permanently. Article is unreferenced, the only source(s) cited are actually summaries of the radio show he "appears on". Also, there is the real possibility of failing WP:BIO. Let's not have Jimbo delete this one. MER-C 11:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If any of it is verifiable using reliable sources, merge into The Wack Pack article. Otherwise, delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree completely, lets get this deleted ASAP Oskar 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no factual errors in the article, though the language could be cleaned up, especially the use of n****r term third paragraph in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.215 (talk) — 195.229.236.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DO NOT DELETE. No factual errors, and the article utilizes primary source show summaries. There are no better citations that could possibly exist. This subject is topical and relevant and should remain as a stand alone entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.148.189.25 (talk) — 12.148.189.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • If "There are no better citations that could possibly exist", this will probably be deleted until citations are found (if ever). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keepI think it fits:

A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following.

His fansites, myspace page, and SFN Forum back this one up. Additionally fans have made cartoons staring him, and songs using his dialouge. I think these qualify as a cult following. -Hoponpop69 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - For notability, subject has a large fan base, fansites, and multiple works created around subject. As for WP:BLP, and reliable sources, suggest stubbing article back to introduction, and possibly keeping own show section, since neither of those sections appear to be contentious. Then protect page until exhaustive search can be performed to cite any contentious material including wackipedia(sic) and balloons sections and attempt to reach consensus if possible. If that fails then merge what is left back into The Wack Pack. Merging into wack pack now may cause problems since wack pack article currently poorly sourced as well.(Optigan13 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep - I think Optigan13 said it best. SLATE 06:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete not notable. ZBrannigan 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If individual Pokemon are notable enough to have their own articles, a regular guest caller (live, human, non-fictional) on one of the best known radio shows in the U.S. certainly is. Riddley 12:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP The assertion that this article is poorly sourced is absurd. Look at the bottom of the article. It may need some cleaning up, but that is not a reason to delete it.

    As far as notability is concerned, SomethingAwful.com considers him to be the third most famous little person] in the world. He actually came out ahead of Verne Troyer. Rglovejoy 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP Howard Stern is and has been listened to by millions and is internationally popular. Eric is a frequent, often daily, or weekly, segment of the show and no mere caller. He is not just a caller he is a notable caller on a notable program. Allegations of PoV are worthless here. The article only concerns Eric qua the Howard Stern Show and in so far as he is represented in that capacity this is as neutral as possible. Indeed, since he is only notable qua the Howard Stern Show neutrality need only concern itself with this aspect of him; it is not unneutral to fail to assess Eric from the point of view of his family, friends, or non-stern related figures because the point of view of these figures is not important in relation to the notable aspect of his existence.--Matt 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP In addition the Howard Stern stuff, his appearance on American Dreams warranted him a page on IMDB. Surely that's enough to keep an article on him. 76.208.19.190 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC) — 76.208.19.190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Eric has become a larger part of the Howard Stern Show over the past few years, and figures prominently into many daily discussions & bits. Article should be cleaned up and better referenced, but definetly kept.--BrunoRT 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known to million of radio listeners of Howard Stern. Definitely deserving of a seperate page 68.238.221.221 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — 68.238.221.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • STRONG KEEP This individual has become a mini-celebrity and has also been referenced on other non-Howard Stern related websites. Ecnirpnaf99 12:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to wack pack article and deleted all unsourced info. This article has too much fancruft in it, Eric does not pass the 10/100 test. Most keep arguments seem to be WP:ILIKEIT or WP:BIGNUMBER. —Ocatecir Talk 05:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONGLY KEEP Eric is an important member of the show and one of the top whack packers. He was voted the number three midget of all time an appears on the Stern show almost daily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tofilmfan (talk • contribs) 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
  • STRONG KEEP~ He is a very important part of Stern Show history!!
  • Delete Unreferenced nonsence like this has no place on wikipedia. Greatestrowerever 12:57, 23 March 2007 (GMT)

STRONGLY KEEP- he already outlived what his doctors said he would and is growing in popularity,if you do not keep this you are just a bunch of little people haters (or just hate actors)

  • STRONGLY KEEP Eric has been a near-daily-appearing show character since 2002. From 2002 through 2005 the Howard Stern show, Monday through Friday, had over 10 million listeners per day. With the Sirius/XM merger the show could in the very near future attain those type of numbers once again. The Howard Stern Show is as mainstream a piece of American pop culture as one can get speaking in the most strict, capitalist terms. I've seen wiki of dozens of programs with literally a thousanth of the audience of the Stern show per week who have seperate profiles for characters or personalties of parallel profile to what Eric has had with Howard. It takes quite a lot of moxie to judge the impact of a character or what he has meant to a show when one hasn't been a listener/viewer to it, as many of those pro-delete zealots show a clear indication of. Or even the absurd notion that Howard Stern fans can't be the best arbiters, or arbiters at all, for keeping acuracy on Howard Stern centric profiles. Do you see we Stern fans trying to create seperate profiles for every Wack Packer? It would be helpful if the people in these arguments stated their basic opinion on the show they're making judgements about BTW, I have no problem removing the mystery and acknowledging biases. Also excuse me if I assume an Englishman,Greatestrowerever, wouldn't be the best barometer for the American radio atmosphere and who it registers with in the American culture. Stephen's black friend 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is a crucial part of The Howard Stern Show. He's done to much for one person to deleate one's page. He makes people smile and laugh each day.

STRONGLY KEEP!!! For the simple reason that he should not be censored from Wiki. If someone wants to learn about Eric, they should be able to find valid information about him.

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is one of the most beloved members of the WackPack. His calls to the show are the stuff of legend and he has truly separated himself from average WackPackers. He is and always will be a lexicon of The Howard Stern Show and rightly deserves special recognition for his contributions and works. --Sir Brentallica-- Knights of the SFN

STRONGLY KEEP. Eric the Midget is a very big part of the Howard Stern Radio Show. If this post were to be deleted, you would also have to delete other members of his show. This Wiki should not be censored, or otherwise it loses validity and becomes biased.

  • strongly keep ETM is arguably the most popular and influential little person in popular culture today. His influence is starting to extend beyond the realm of the Stern show and into the area of music, wrestling and organized crime. Sti571 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)sti571

STRONGLY KEEP! Eric is a member of the Howard Stern Wack pack. He contributes to the show frequently. He should have a page as other members of the Wack Pack have theirs. 67.149.130.107hp242

  • Delete. For the love of God, delete it. Why we need to have articles on people who only appear on nationally aired talk shows is a major mystery to me. It's different for someone like Stuttering John, who has notability outside of the show. But it's just ridiculous in this case. He isn't notable just for being on the show alot. It doesn't work that way. And to whomever closes this, good luck counting the votes. I wish non-Wikipedia users wouldn't flood AfDs like this. It's counter productive. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • strong keep Eric is a huge part of one of the most popular and influential radio shows in history.Xpendersx 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, he is notable enough for an article. I know of him, and I never even listen to Howard Stern. --musicpvm 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I came here specifically for knowledge about eric the midget. It's not like the internet is running out of disk space.
  • Keep, I have an issue with some of the comments made in this discussion, as I think everyone deserves a BIO page, regardless of what their claim to fame is, or even if they have none. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia for everything that has ever been, and everyone has had some kind of impact on society and the way of the world. Eric is no exception to this. Eric is a real person, who has a life and has had an impact on society, just like everyone else who has a BIO. Having said that, I do admit that the article reads less like a BIO and more like an article about "Eric's antics on the Howard Stern show". Maybe a new article should be created for *that* topic, and those portions of the BIO can be moved out of the BIO page and onto that topic page. Then, people can argue about whether *that* page should be deleted. But the BIO page itself should remain, if for no other reason, than out of respect for Eric. Mikeguz 02:32, 25 March 2007 (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.