Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Frosties Kid

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 Speedy unspeedy delete keep a.k.a. no consensus - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Frosties Kid

This article has been going through a pointless revert war due to aggressive editing from certain editors, the fact that it is now only 3 lines serves no purpose, nor is it useful to anyone trying to find out more information relating to the subject or phenomenon of "The Frosties Kid", basically there is no reason to have this article when all the content pertaining to the subject matter is not present. The discussions in the talk page have resulted to no consensus so now I am putting it up for deletion to see what the redeeming qualities are to keep such a pointless installment to WP. Piecraft 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This editor is just mad because of a content disagreement. We currently have a proposal in the talk page for a final version. --mboverload@ 00:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, please do not try to make this personal. I couldn't care less about the article as it stands. I put it up for nom. because as it stands (as I have explained) it is not notable, nor bears purpose as a decent WP article therefore it should be deleted in my opinion. There is insufficient information relating to this subject, being an article relating to the protagonist The Frosties Kid when there isn't even a full name for the actor or any other information and evidence given other than 3 lines of text which hardly inform of anything. It should be deleted because it is not a worthy article, the three sentences are very vague and do not possess any possible information that contribute to the article or subject. Piecraft 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - content disagreements should be taken to WP:RFC or WP:RFM if they can't be resolved on the talk page. Yomangani 00:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this is not a content disagreement this is a disagreement for such an article which hold no decent content relating to the subject matter to be included within WP. This as of now is basic internet cruft. If the article is changed to "The Frosties Kid Commercial" or moved to Frosties cereal and the three lines moved into that article then fine. But as a stand alone vague article it does not belong here according to the guidelines. Piecraft 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Yomangani. -- Vary | Talk 00:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above. Bp28 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, pointless article Piecraft 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please don't try to "stuff the ballot box"; for one thing, the process is immune to this (decisions are made on the strength of arguments rather than vote count), and for another your nomination has already explained your argument enough that repeating it here as an additional "vote" isn't necessary. -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, once again you're making things out to be as they aren't I am not "stuffing the ballot box" if this article is kept fine, I put my vote because when I put it up for nomination I forgot to state I wanted it deleted. Any senior editor who will close this vote will see that, if I was making up votes I would be posting under several aliases. And I'm not pathetic like some people have been in the past to do such a deed. Piecraft 11:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know about "once again," I think the above comment was my only one in this AfD until now. But to the extent that I may have misinterpreted your comment, I apologize. It's generally understood that an editor who nominates an article for deletion supports its deletion, and I've seen more than a few users try to sway a discussion with multiple posts; in such cases, it seems helpful to inform them as to why this doesn't work. -- H·G (^words/_works) 05:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Life is too short to get worked up over someone on a commercial called The Frosties Kid --Xrblsnggt 03:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into frosties article.--Peta 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is sufficiently notable in his own right. I wouldn't be terribly opposed to a merge either but this topic certainly needn't be deleted. AfD is not the place to settle content disputes. GassyGuy 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Speedy Delete. Sorry, but I agree. This isn't noteworthy, and it certainly doesn't need its own article. It could be merged into Rice Krispies, or simply deleted. But this page needs to not be here anymore. --ThatBajoranGuy 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Rice Krispies? I'm guessing you mean, er, Frosties? GassyGuy 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per GassyGuy. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or at least merge as the Frosties kid is just a person in a short-running ad campaign. Nowhere near the more notable of uk advert characters such as the milky bar kid or even Frosties own Tony the Tiger. MLA 08:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

*Keep The Frosties kid is an advertsment and has notability. My own thoughts are that it should be regarded as a notable advertisment rather than a spiel about a kid none of us know. Their are no less than 5 ADMINS involved with the article and every ADMIN seems to think that EVERYONE must be a 13yr old kid who adds to the article. There has been Flaming Talk:The_Frosties_Kid/Archive_1. The commercial runs day and night in the UK and has been a source of rumour since it was first screened in movie halls.

WIKIPEDIA should not be the source of wild uncited rumour. However WIKIPEDIA can be a source where people can makeup their on minds and be led to outside sources.

I did not create this article, my only interest is that Frosties Kid has become part of living culture (you here about him on the bus, train, school-ground and pub) in the UK.

I have presented an article about The Frosties Kid Article sandbox and so has Mboverload both articles treat the Frosties Kid as being the advert (New Frosties advert [1] and not the boy. My dream is simple accept the ADVERT as a concept of Idealism think about the advert. Will it live in peoples minds? Will people consult WIKIPEDIA in two or ten years time about the frosties kid as an ADVERT? Mike33

Comment, if this article is relating to the advertisement commercial it should be deleted. It has nothing to do with the commercial and the title suggests otherwise. Piecraft 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As per MERGER Frosted Flakes editors gave a huge sigh of releif when The Frosties Kid was opened. It had become a source of attack and vandalism. MERGER is an impossibilty.

Again, my last few sentences on the matter is to Keep, however i would ask editors to write articles THAT YOU WANT in place of 3 lines. But please remember that other editors can only justify if they are properly sourced. Mike33 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Posted by Mike33 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, once again I will state the facts as they stand. It's true that the Frosties Kid is an internet phenomenon but this is not present in the article. And regardless what mboverload or any other editor who has been associated to the ongoing mess that is a discussion about this article says, the proposed substitution articles are hardly useful or according to the title. If you want to make an article relating to the commercial than do it by all means, but this one is NOT about the commercial. Let's try again THE FROSTIES KID should be an article relating to the character, perhaps the phenomenon relating or not relating to him and anything between. It is not an excuse to write three lines where, the first describes the ad and the last describes the jingle and there is no purpose for it. When there is no purpose for the content relating to an article it is void of being useful or having a point, and in this case I continue to say this article is pointless. I would agree to either MERGE with Frosted Flakes/Frosties article - seeing as it would fit into a "popular culture" or "trivia" section. Otherwise delete and remake an article based on the appropiate subject matter i.e. the commercial itself and not some ambiguous character here that has hardly any information relating to it (supposedly). Piecraft 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Frosted Flakes. As one of the main contributors I think Wikipedia should have some information on it, but obviously this would never be big enough to be a forever-stub. --mboverload@ 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep If Modified ELSE Merge - see talk page --Jum4 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete realists always win over idealists (Realists = what they see must be true however unsourced) i am tired of this whole subject - it is an advert and nothing more. A performer in the advert has been ridiculed in web blogs/forums. Realists please remember the picture is not the frame. Mike33 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Frosted Flakes. wikipediatrix 13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as useless article. Moreschi 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Bucketsofg✐
• Speedy Keep Bababoum 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and/or Merge with Frosted Flakes. We don't give articles to a character who briefly appeared in one commercial in only a few countries. The Dell Dude's many commercials are far more notable worldwide than the Frosties Kid, and even he doesn't get his own article. Crabapplecove 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - at best form given the information we have, it's a 3 line stub. At worst it's full of unnecessary junk, and possibly a copyvio. If we wish to consider notability there's no real reason for this to even be in an encyclopedia. It's an article about a charcter who is in a single commercial. If it was a recurring character, than I possibly could see it. But just one? Delete, please. The information isn't even notable enough for a merge.--Toffile 14:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the reason for this AfD was ever about Notability, if it survives this AfD, that can be raised by other editors. This Afd concerns how the article is steered whether (1)it should be about an ADVERTISEMENT or (2)about a kid who happens to appear in an advertisement (who despite all the wealth of information the Internet gives us is nameless). Not sure how copyvio comes into it. It (as the article stands as I write this) includes a short summary of the subject matter of the advert (albeit pointless when readers are directed to a well written full synopsis) and a screen grab (properly listed as FAIR USE ONLY). Mike33 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have written a rant and rave comment in [[2]] its not about actual policy but discusses the Organic nature of an open ended Wiki. It is not however intended to be read as a "vote" one way or another. It is an OT rant and rave. Mike33 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a request for comments. It is a process to determine if the subject material should be used in the encyclopedia. I do not believe it belongs in this encyclopedia.--Toffile 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And the copyvio deals with the usage of lyrics some previous versions have had. --Toffile 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the lyrics have not appeared in the article for over 14 days. Afd is not a "vote" and yes it is an invitation for comment. The idea of an Encylopedia is not cut and dry, all encyclopedias have many contributors, and many styles of writing. Until 2 hours ago, I had no idea that Dell Dude existed. On our side of the pond Dell Dude isn't well known - should I raise that as AfD? All articles have a place on Wikipedia as long as they are not crass, self purpetuating, or breach formally agreed rules WP:Notability. Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived)

Comment can create changes in perception. I am all in favour of that. My decision that I agree with the originator of this AfD was that the article was replaced by an idea I posted in a sandbox, that the article should be steered in another direction. It was never decided upon, despite constant discussion. If this AfD is moving to arguments about WP:Notability then my stance changes. Mike33 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This AfD was raised about a content dispute and the direction/steering of the article. If this AfD is about notability, then please see Talk:Frosted Flakes discussion about the frosties kid were raised 5 weeks ago after constant vandalism to the site. Mike33 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. AFD is not the place to resolve content disputes. AFD is an invitation for comments on whether or not an article should be deleted, yes, but it is not a Request For Comment, which is, I think, what Toffile meant in his comment above. If issues relating to this article could not be resolved on the article's talk page, it's time to go to the next step in dispute resolution. But Picraft's nom, combined with some of his comments on the article's talk page immediately before he nominated the page, suggest that, as Mboverload said, he nominated the page because he was displeased with the way the discussion was going. [3] [4] See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. This is why I and a few other editors have voted for a speedy keep - this is an out-of-process nomination.

Editors are always free to suggest deletion for concerns other than those raised in the nomination. The most common deletion vote is 'per nom,' but that doesn't mean that every deletion vote must agree with the nominator's reasoning. If the article is deleted, it won't matter who supported what course of action and why, so if you think the article should be deleted, and so does Toffile, why does it matter if you don't agree on the reason? -- Vary | Talk 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I feel a little foolish now. User:Piecraft:Piecraft and Jum4 had disputes with several admins about RV to the point where 5 admins were involved and the article was locked for a week. it sat as 3 lines, which could have sat on any article and nobody would have noticed them. The last frosties kid article was a speedy delete on july 7th. (i was not involved with that and neither was Jum4, who started this present article on july 8th) My only involvement with the article has been on the talk page or RV when spurious unsourced comments and sections have been added. Prior to the locking, the article was constantly vandalised like Frosted Flakes, some guy even posted me with a test3 on my user page. AfD is probably not the right way to have dealt with the matter. But if the article were to be deleted because I voted because I agreed Per nom then it would greatly matter to me if it was deleted as a matter of copyvio or notability, which haven't been largely discussed. But thanks User Talk VARY for the explanation about how AfD works. Mike33 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, the article has been put up for deletion not for content dispute, but for the fact that at the time I put it up for deletion the article no longer referred to the subject of title that the article should have been discussing. It's all very well to go on about how we should have discussed it on the talk page or resolved it on dispute resolution, but bear in mind I was the one who had already requested admins to lock this article down when the article was being carelessly reverted and "vandalised" to the extent of going nowhere. And when the article was once again changed to the revisions of 14:01, 28 July 2006 which if anything were already considered to be acceptable by other users. If such an article was to be acceptable it would need to be more than a pointless stub relating information about an ad and the jingle when it is supposed to be relating to THE FROSTIES KID. Wikipedia is not a repository for pointless articles to take up space, now if I need to once again repeat my reasons for nom then you seriously need to check up on the regulatins yourself. This nomination is not about notability but the fact that the article is pointless and of no use. Piecraft 09:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, Move and Stub . "Useless article" is no excuse for blasting the article straight. Then, all stubs would be gone. How about this: move it to They're Gonna Taste Great! (advert)', and write about the advert, it's content, audience and audience reaction. MrD 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment the article was not originally a stub, and the stub that you are relating to did not have any room for expansion, so please leave your assumptions aside when misinformed. The fact that I branded the article "useless" was for those following reasons. Thank you. Piecraft 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Easy now, I was referring to granting it Stub status after, as you suggested, removing any unverifiable information and beginning afresh. MrD 01:37, 2 August 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.