Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ever-failing character

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 delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 11:20Z

[edit] Ever-failing character

Ever-failing character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT. This unsourced, neologistic term appears to have been created by the article's original writer. It has almost no Google hits. All 26 hits (11 when it cuts redundant hits) appear to draw its information from this article. Doczilla 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Josh Parris#: 00:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also a big finger wag to the author for not even mentioning the greatest failure in cinematic history, Indiana Jones. Danny Lilithborne 03:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • HAD to create the name-could also call it "trend of characters failure" or something similar,yet I simply wished to specify a popular Television trend of creating characters who never do win.The names not important,heck you can make it into a sub-section of another article,all im saying is i DONT KNOW under what article it would fit,yet it IS a historical and curent trend,based on comedy of a persons ever-repeated failures and I understand that the name might be changed,got nothing against that or this thing can be moved to another article as a sub-section,yet delting this and evrything on it from Wikipedia COMPLETELY,would indicate the ignoring of an existing topic witch is already manifested for many years and would find many many more examples then I have noted (didnt watch animated series too much when I was a kid, so I dont know a lot of them) .Move,change name or make into a subsection of a conected article,b ut DONT DELETE CONTETNS FROM WIKIPEDIA.New Babylon —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Babylon (talk • contribs) 2006-12-21 16:05:24
    • If the television trend has not already been documented outside of Wikipedia, then documenting it in Wikipedia violates our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. The proper place to document a never-before-documented trope in television programmes is an article in a journal about television or about literature, or a book. If you want to make an argument that this article should be kept, then you must show that this trend has already been documented in journal articles, books, magazines, and so forth, by citing sources. The sources will also tell you what it is called. Going by the article, the talk page discussion, and your comment, it appears that you have no sources, and that you just invented a concept, and decided to come to Wikipedia to document it first here. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Being "wiki" does not mean being first. Wikipedia is an enyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:09, 22 December 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.