Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Goof

Add links
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 keep. Xclamation point 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Goof

[edit]
Max Goof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only real world content is a mention that some guy dresses up in a costume as with every other Disney character. The other claims are just original research. The rest of the content is just made up of summaries of his appearances (plot summary) and a description of the character's personality (OR). My description seems to match quite well. TTN (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep central character of 79-episode TV series, 2 movies, comic series, and at least one video game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that the character appears/appeared in various media does not inherently make it notable. If it were so notable, surely there would be references to secondary sources discussing the character. Yet there are no references at all, so the article fails WP:V as well as the general notability guideline. The article has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} for a year and yet no one has added any references of any kind. If this article is salveagable in any way, it seems no one is interested in improving it and therefore there is no compelling reason for keeping it. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sources. Both the show and movie were widely reviewed when they came out. I found this in less than a minute of searching. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case the sources should specifically discuss the character, not merely the show or film in general. Such sources are certainly appropriate to the articles on the show or film but are insufficient to show why this particular character is independently notable outside the contexts of those works. The source you've provided seems to be reliable yet probably cannot be used because the site requires registration in order to view the article. And even so all it would seem to say, judging by the title and lead, is that they added the Max character to Disney on Ice and updated his look a bit. If you feel you can come up with additional reliable sources, then by all means flag the article for rescue and FIX it. But I would feel more inclined to keep it if such sources had been added sometime in the 4½ years since the article's creation, or in the year since it was tagged as unreferenced. It shouldn't take an AfD to force interested editors to start looking for sources, and when an article has gone this long without meeting our core policies such as V and NOT, deletion is a perfectly reasonable option. However, as I say, if you feel you can improve it to the point where deletion is no longer a valid option then by all means please do. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know where you got the idea that newspaper articles requiring registation can't be used as sources, but that's not true either by policy or current practice. Even aside from that, you miss my point completely. People haven't been dutifully searching for sources for four years and not finding them... our sourcing policies years ago were weak and vague, so many older articles lack sources. This doesn't mean they don't exist. If I found a source in under a minute with a simple Google search, then so can ou, so can the moninator, and so can anyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That may be, but it seems that, other than yourself, there is a lack of interest in finding sources for the article. Per WP:V ample time has been given for such sourcing to be done. As I mentioned, it has been tagged as unreferenced for a year, and our sourcing policies have been well established since well before it ws tagged (Oct. 2007...one would think that at least one interested editor would have shown up since then and scrounged up a couple of sources). Also per V, the burden of sourcing lies with those wishing to keep the content. I don't feel that the source you found would add anything substantial to the article that would demonstrate notability. I did a quick google search myself and didn't find anything in the first 5 or 6 pages of hits that would pass WP:RS...mostly wikis, forums, fansites, blogs, and episode guides; no reliable secondary sources. You had luck finding 1 source, and it seems to be a very trivial one. Nevertheless, you're welcome to continue searching for sources and improving the article, and if you feel that it's improved to the point where deletion is no longer a valid option then this AfD can always be closed. A year has gone by and no interested editors have done the legwork to find sources. An AfD lasts 5 days, so hopefully that pressure will spur others like yourself to jump in and find them. If they don't, then that's a good indication that sources probably don't exist and deletion is a valid option. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Goof Troop, not individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sources have been shown to exist, and not having those sources in the article isn't a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1 very trivial source has turned up. This is insufficient to justify a keep. That other sources may exist out there in the ether is irrelevant if no editors are willing to search for them and add them to the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind and DGG. Major character of a major TV series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yet another boilerplate nom ignorant of the actual notability of subject. AfD is not a venue to force clean-up. JuJube (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are people confusing this with one of the primary Disney characters? This character is from a spin-off show that only ran a little over a year, a few spin-off strait to video/DVD films, and a few minor cameos. If I had nominated Pete (Disney character) for deletion, that argument would make sense, but not for this one. TTN (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is real world information. I can see a photo in the article as well! The character is notable outside the cartoon TV series. Since it's a meetable character, I think it's obvious it's recognizable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DGG, Starblind. Notable character who has appeared in multiple media including cartoon shorts over 50 years old. 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Where are you getting 50 years from? The article states that this character debuted in 1992. He may have been based on some earlier characters, but that doesn't mean that this character has existed for 50 years. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Max_Goof&oldid=1082409546"