Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Ewing

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. —Kurykh 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Ewing

Jack Ewing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is one of many unreferenced articles about characters from the TV series Dallas.

The rest of the articles can be found in Category:Dallas (TV series) characters. All of the articles are written from the fictional world instead of this one, and it seems that none of them contain referenced claims. I'm willing to bet that there's very little that can be said in the real world about these characters, so we should consider following up on this AfD with all other articles in the category except for J. R. Ewing, who the Dallas (TV series) article claims is the character who made the series take off.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Very week keep We do accept articles on fictional characters based on the WP:PAPER argument but I will admit that almost all of these appear to be of very poor quality (who really cares what car Lucy drove?). I say keep for now to let someone improve the articles but if that doesn't happen they will likely end up here again. Also, thanks for not mass nominating these as most such nominations turn out to be trainwrecks. MartinDK 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for the warning about mass nominations -- since I've seen such trainwrecks before, I've revised the wording of my nomination to make it more clearly a single nomination (for now). If the consensus is to delete, perhaps the right course of action would be to PROD the similar articles.
  Now, I recognize that we have many articles on fictional characters, but we should not have articles whose content is fictional, as per WP:WAF. For instance, what car Lucy drives is not just unimportant, it's fictional. It seems to me that J. R. Ewing is the only character with enough real-world significance that an encyclopedic article could be written about him. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with you which is why its only as very week keep. If no improvement takes place over the next few days I will most likely favor deletion of not only this one but all the minor characters. MartinDK 08:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's very little about Jack in the article. What little there is should be merged back into Dallas and some of the garbage that's already clogging up the main article should be deleted or at least split off. Clarityfiend 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete minor characters should be mentioned at the main article, which this one is. Carlossuarez46 06:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with some of the other more minor characters to an article on all the more minor characters as per the Simpsons example List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. Davewild 08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's been a while since I saw any Dallas, and I never followed it religiously, but I don't think this was a major character. JulesH 11:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:PAPER (and its nephew, WP:POKEMON) illustrate the sad double standard that exists in Wikipedia. Here, we've got a guy forced to argue a "weak keep" for something that's (a) pure original research (b) unsourced and (c) uninteresting and useless. If this were an article called, say, "Oil barons in popular culture", let's face it, it would be held to a different standard. It's refreshing to see a "dumb" article nominated for deletion for a change.... Jack, take Lucy and the rest of the gang with you. Mandsford 19:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  I was not forced to !vote very weak keep. I am, however, not sure that we should delete all of them. JR, Cliff Barnes and Bobby Ewing were all significant to the plot of this very notable TV series and I want to see how many editors are really interested in maintaining these articles. Like I said I can certainly be convinced into !voting delete on this one if no improvement takes place but I want to give the people who cares about maintaining and improving these articles a fair chance before we go ahead and nominate the rest of the minor characters for deletion. It is not completely unlikely that a decent article could be written but if no one reacts to this AfD by improving it I would say that it is unlikely that such improvement will take place and then we might as well delete it or merge them all into one article on the minor characters. I often change my !vote on AfD's - it depends on what happens during the course of the AfD. MartinDK 05:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:55, 10 July 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.