Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Shake

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 and redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force. No reliable sources to establish notability, but a plausible search item and thus warrants a redirect to the main article. Nothing out of universe or non-original research to establish why this is a character worth writing about; notability of the parent show is simply not enough. {Note: The other ATHF character pages seem to have similar problems as well...) ~Eliz81(C) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master Shake

Master Shake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Then let's delete every single character page and series page out there, while we're at it. Did you ever look at Aqua Teen fansites? Did you even watch the show? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Other stuff exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and almost or maybe a speedy keep, as Master Shake is one of the three main characters in a cartoon series that was made into a film and video game, and the advertising of the film attracted national news with the whole moonite sscare fiasco in Boston. Passes any notability requirements with ease. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • One of the three main characters of a notable tv series, movie, game, etc. is by definition inherently notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Please read over WP:N and WP:FICT, as you're confusing in universe notability and popularity with this site's definition of notability. TTN (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, it passes them ovewhelmingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Would you care to read the nutshells and explain how exactly it passes them? TTN (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Doing a google or dogpile search turns up tons of sources on this character, which appears in multiple forms of entertainment media and has been referenced or appeared on other shows as well. They even made toys of the character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Real world information is required. What you'll find in a search will consist of fan sites, articles on the series itself, and other random junk. Toy are real world information for the series, not the character. TTN (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
                • Toys, TV shows, a movie, a video game, etc. for a main character are all very real world and have achieved national (if not international) attention accordingly. A character that appears in a multi-season show and in various forms is recognizable and worthwhile to have an article on for a non-paper encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • Despite how you feel, per WP:N and WP:FICT, this needs a substantial amount of real world information based directly upon the character from reliable sources. The superficial popularity of the character has nothing to do with it. TTN (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • I don't disagree that more sources wouldn't hurt, but it would be ridiculous by our standards to delete an article concerning a main character that has had so many appearances on a national level and who is recognizable to movie goers, game players, TV watchers, toy collectors, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
                      • It doesn't have any sources that assert notability, so it does not require an article by our standards. What you speak if is superficial popularity, and it does not matter at all. TTN (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
                        • The article meets our presentation and organization standards and concerns a character with some level of recognition to a variety of people at least across the U.S.A. It has enough notability to deserve consideration on an encyclopedia with I think (if I'm incorrect with the number, I apologize) 2 million or so articles. Readers are interested in the character and editors are willing to devote time improving an article that can be supported by facts and that does not personally attack anyone. We shouldn't turn away our readers and volunteer editors. Plus, as the game is recent and I believe a new season may be coming, the notability is likely to continue increasing as well and it would be unnecessary to have to start the article over. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above discussion and TenPoundHammer. Does not appear to establish notability. If, in the future, it becomes notable (as asserted by the Grand King) then an article can be written and evaluated at that time. We don't predict notability. AvruchTalk 06:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep revision: Okaythen, he's one of the main characters of a popular cartoon show that is rated in the Neilsens AND has been newsworthy (even though that Mooninite thingy had nothing to do with the character persay). Doc Strange (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He is on telly - I have never seen the programm and the fact that I need to read the article to form an opinion makes me think there should be an article. Aatomic1 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. And you say a main character of a popular animated series isn't notable? The rescue team will be there soon. ps, this may just be the best AFD ever. ViperSnake151 13:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It has fans and is a main character. Vladimir.OShea (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment FHM 'interview' [1] with Master Shake. RMHED (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Seems to be another in-universe article full of original research and personal descriptions of the charactor. NO references are listed other than the voice actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Aqua Teen Hunger Force#Characters or delete. The show actually is one of my occaisional guilty pleasures, and initially I thought this was an automatic keep. However, the article isn't sourced, and I had a real problem trying to source Shake independantly of ATHF. The version history show that this existed as a redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force from 2003 until January, and there really doesn't seem to be much to say that isn't either OR, or all ready in the main article. Xymmax (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless WP:V and applicable policies can be satisfied. Notability means nothing if the article is comprised entirely of unverifiable original research. One Night In Hackney303 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete per Xymmax. I, too, thought this was an automatic keep, but I am persuaded by the delete arguments above. A merge into the characters subsection of the main article seems the best idea. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, for Christ's sake, people...THIS IS ALL VERIFIABLE! This is just an agenda by one soreheaded user who is picking one particular article to have a conniption about and an agenda on. I upgrade my vote to Strong Keep, and urge anyone who hasn't already done so to do the same. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you really need to calm down and take a deep breath. This is an AfD, not a witch hunt, and there is no need to take this personally, or to engage in personal attacks upon the editor who proposed the deletion, or the editors who have suggested delete. "Upgrading" your "vote" to "strong keep" really is not going to make any difference in the final decision. We use consensus here, not voting, and it will be the strength of the arguments, based upon policy, that will win the day. Whatever happens, this is not about you, or your feelings, nor is it about TTN or his feelings. It is about notability and verifiability. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot see how this is about anything other than one user's crusade against this article. It is notable, it is verifiable. That alone should be enough for it to stay. This article should not be deleted, and anyone who disagrees is buying into his agenda. I'm sorry, but I don't see how it can go any other way. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you think this is verifiable? It is entirely original research. Any sources are in-universe fan sites. Page can be merged to the link below. Reywas92Talk 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I repeat: there was no good reason for this article to be nominated. And I do not see why it should be deleted when it's more than a little obvious that the nomination is under false pretenses. I repeat: TTN has an agenda. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Then why the hell should it have a real-world encyclopedia article?! (Sorry if I'm too rude). Reywas92Talk 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing admin - Absolutely none of the keep votes have anything to do with our policies and guidelines. Most believe that this is notable because the show is notable, which is not the case (WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence). Aatomic1 believes this deserves a spot because he had to read the article. (?) Commodorepat is not up to date with our fiction guidelines. They should not count towards any decision. TTN (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You should give admins some credit for being intelligent enough to make up their own minds and myself and others believe Master Shake is notable because he is one of the three main characters in not just a show, but also a movie, toys, video games, guest appearances on other shows, etc. It'd be like saying we think Luke Skywalker is notable just because Star Wars is. Obviously, main characters have achieved their own degree of notability as well, especially when they appear in multiple medias and forms. Plus, our guidelines are edited and change daily. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Most admins will just declare no consensus right away due to the number of "votes", though this isn't a vote. Anyways, as I just linked up above Notability requires objective evidence. Appearing in those mediums does not assert or establish notability because they are part of the main topic. The character is not what is being singled out. Luke Skywalker is not notable because of the various mediums he has been shown in; he is notable because the character can have extensive coverage in real world sources (as shown by Jabba the Hutt, Palpatine, and Padmé Amidala). TTN (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If that's not proof you have an agenda, TTN, I don't know what is. Here's a hint: just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean that thousands of people haven't either. If I was a mod, I'd close this vote in favor of keeping and have your posting privileges suspended for a week for wasting everyone's time. Then again, that's just me. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If I had an agenda towards fiction articles, I would argue that three featured articles listed above should be delisted and deleted. Obviously, that is not my opinion. If wanting articles to fit our policies and guidelines counts as an agenda, most people on this site fit that criteria. I really suggest that you use Wikia; it'd be a much better place for you. TTN (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you keep your mouth shut, because there was no reason for you do even bring this to deletion. You didn't send this to deletion because you wanted this to fit policies and criteria. You did it because you were sore that your edits got reverted. That's called an agenda, and you are guilty as charged. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am going to caution you about your attitude, and suggest that you be civil in AfD discussions. Telling another user to keep his or mouth shut is certainly not being civil. I cautioned you above about stopping, taking a deep breath, and trying to remember that this is not a personal attack upon you, nor should you make personal attacks upon the editor who made the AfD request. Accusing other users of having agendas and threatening them with what you would do if you were a "mod" are certainly signs of bad faith on your part. You need to calm down. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I may have been a little quick in assuming his motives, but I still fail to see how it isn't an agenda. And I don't see how I can't tell him to be quiet when he tells me, not in so many words, to leave the Wiki. That was uncalled for. As to why I've voted to keep this article, my reasons are simple: 1) that it is verifiable (if one looks at the websites and watches the episodes, they can observe Master Shake's characteristics and prove once and for all that what is said is true); 2) that enough exists about the character to warrant Master Shake having his own page (don't misinterpret that as "well, then every character should-", as not every character in every series is worthy of its own page and that there are other pages more worthy of an AfD nod); 3) that it's a useful page for anyone who wants to learn more about the character (much more than a blurb on the character page could do justice), fans and non-fans alike; and 4) that the page is encyclopedic in content. A fifth reason was that I really believe that this is a bad faith AfD nod, and I don't believe that the page should be deleted as a result of one person's agenda. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 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.