Content deleted Content added
TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) {{Not a ballot}} |
Doctorfluffy (talk | contribs) m formatting was changed at some point, making it clear my comment is a reply to the above !vote |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
* '''Keep''' This article has both significance and relevance to many engineers. It uses multiple illustrations to highlight the fact that many practical engineering problems can be solved using wits and available technology. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.215.54.133|75.215.54.133]] ([[User talk:75.215.54.133|talk]]) 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
* '''Keep''' This article has both significance and relevance to many engineers. It uses multiple illustrations to highlight the fact that many practical engineering problems can be solved using wits and available technology. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.215.54.133|75.215.54.133]] ([[User talk:75.215.54.133|talk]]) 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
*LOL. [[User:Doctorfluffy|Doctorfluffy]] <small>([[User talk:Doctorfluffy|robe and wizard hat]])</small> 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
*:LOL. [[User:Doctorfluffy|Doctorfluffy]] <small>([[User talk:Doctorfluffy|robe and wizard hat]])</small> 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Delete''' This needs to go on deletionpedia for eternal preservation. -[[Special:Contributions/72.93.211.14|72.93.211.14]] ([[User talk:72.93.211.14|talk]]) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
'''Delete''' This needs to go on deletionpedia for eternal preservation. -[[Special:Contributions/72.93.211.14|72.93.211.14]] ([[User talk:72.93.211.14|talk]]) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:49, 18 November 2008
List of problems solved by MacGyver
AfDs for this article:
- List of problems solved by MacGyver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is not notable and is fancruft. There is solely an in universe context and no real world notability can be established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As far as i know, "in universe context" is not a valid reason for deletion. There are many articles that describe things that only apply to a universe created by a book, movie, or television series. Why specifically harass this one? --Commons:User:Greggor88 10:50, November 14th (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggor88 (talk • contribs)
- Keep You only started this because it's on digg. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- This comment doesn't address any of my concerns. Recommend you strike it and write something that adds to the discussion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: This isn't a valid reason for why to keep. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Merge cited real-world context to MacGyver#MacGyverisms and leave behind the plot detail. We can copy the article's external link to the main article to point readers to a list of MacGyverisms. And yeah, being on Digg.com, others should be forewarned of dealing with popular vote vs. policy-driven consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify my !vote, Wikipedia articles use plot summaries in support of a topic as fleshed out by real-world context. This article does the opposite; real-world context was provided (probably to rescue the article from previous AfDs) to support all this plot detail. I think that the real-world context that was added was misapplied and merging the information to the main article should suffice, especially with the one external link detailing MacGyverisms off-wiki. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's been nominated twice before and always failed. Plus, as mentioned above, the fact that this nomination came up the same day that the article was posted on Digg is no coincidence. Eightball (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I saw it on digg, noticed the problems with the article, and brought it to AFD. Being in the spotlights illuminates problems just as well as it illuminates the high points of Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the most recent AFD is nearly one year ago. Consensus can change. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that the article has been nominated for AfD before is irrelevant. Consensus can change over time. The first AfD was to keep, while the second afD had no consensus, defaulting to keep. Who knows? The outcome of this AfD may be to delete. I would encourage a stronger argument than the fact it's been up for AfD before. The system is clearly designed for an article to be renominated. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: This isn't a reason to keep. It's part WP:NOREASON and part "It was nominated before and it was kept." That's not a reason. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think this should be kept. It's a popular subject in of itself among persons. Its common for analogies to be made explicitly to how macgyver solved something. A couple of published books have been written specifically on MacGyver and his solving of particular dilemmas. Its generally a subject of its own. I think that this is just a ploy because the article appeared on Digg. Nobody said anything when this comment was mentioned weeks before today when it appeared in the HTML of an xkcd comment referencing the skill of Macgyver solving dilemmas. Though, because it appears on Digg it needs to be nominated AGAIN for a THIRD time for deletion. Wtf? The people have already spoken TWICE before that the article is fine where it is.
Macgyver problem solving in my opinion can stand on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep In many ways, MacGyver's problem-solving was at the heart of the eponymous television show, and as such constitutes a relevant encyclopedia topic (both because of its centrality to MacGyver and because MacGyver's problem-solving has entered the popular consciousness -- clever, parsimonious solutions to real-world problems are often likened to something MacGyver would have come up with.) Killdevil (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the MacGyver's problem-solving is central to the TV series, but this does not permit an indiscriminate collection of plot detail. The real-world context of MacGyverisms can be merged to the main article, and a few examples can reflect the topic, but not every single problem he's solved in the TV series. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting and useful. While sometimes consensus can change over time, there's nothing that's happened in the past year that should change the reasoning behind the previous consensus. Of course, now that the article was on Digg someone desiring to delete it will probably say that we shouldn't listen to all the keep votes. That would be silly, so when that happens, in the words of that one scientist in that one simpsons episode, "let's not listen." Balonkey (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- It might be worth reading WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING. AfD is not a democracy where the popular vote triumphs; arguments must be grounded in policies and guidelines and not personal opinions of interest and usefulness. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This article has both significance and relevance to many engineers. It uses multiple illustrations to highlight the fact that many practical engineering problems can be solved using wits and available technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.54.133 (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete This needs to go on deletionpedia for eternal preservation. -72.93.211.14 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep MacGyver remains in popular culture, and people have to know the problems and how he's solved them. 68.43.196.134 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- If they are interested in plot detail, the primary sources are not beyond their reach. Wikipedia is not intended as a substitute to watching the TV series. For fictional topics, it covers real-world context, and it can be complemented by select plot detail, not every single problem solved by MacGyver. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As mentioned by Greggor88 being "in universe context" is not a basis for deletion, untold thousands of articles exist related to the "universe" of specific literature or other media. Additionally MacGyver and the resourcefulness the character demonstrated in the series have become integrated into the very fabric of society (in the U.S. at least). As represented by many references or parodies in other media as well as being used in ordinary conversations, especially when referencing examples of or need for unusual/exceptional resourcefulness. Raitchison (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia is constantly changing, and articles that are solely made up of plot detail continue to go out the window. You are arguing for the importance of MacGyverisms, and I don't think anyone disputes this; see MacGyver#MacGyverisms. This, however, does not merit an indiscriminate collection of plot detail. Plot detail needs to complement real-world context in a limited fashion, not the other way around. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete While interesting it is not notable, more akin to trivia and not noteworthy at that. --nycmstar (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- As much as I love reading this article, it's not encyclopedic. BrokenSegue 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Total WP:FANCRUFT, not all that notable. There's already a List of MacGyver episodes; this is basically a duplication of that, only more verbose. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:PLOT by design. This article not only fails to present real world context, there's no room for its inclusion. This article is basically a spinout to keep trivial details off of the episode list. Jay32183 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Excellent example of what Wikipedia is best at. - Mvuijlst (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you mean best at unconventional articles? I think a better example would be the recent Featured Article of the Day, Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. This particular article is solely lacking in real-world context, being entirely composed of plot detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not really fancruft. It is a list of things that Macgyver has solved. I can easily see someone turning to Wikipedia to cite instances of what happened in the series. Keep, keep a thousand times keep. Wikipedia is not paper, relevant, notable, take your pick. StayinAnon (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fancruft is just a coarse word for an overabundance of plot detail. If we cited instances of what happened in the series, we are still using primary sources and still skimping on real-world context. The AfD has nothing to do with the instances being unsourced; it has to do with the fact that the article's primary goal is to convey plot detail, not to provide real-world context about the given topic. The TV series in general and MacGyverisms are notable, both being covered at MacGyver. This does not permit one to go on at length about the in-universe ongoings of a TV series. We have an external link that we can point to for a collection of MacGyverisms off-wiki. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Considering "solving problems" is the cornerstone of a very notable show, this is in fact notable.—DMCer™ 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited. A real Wikipedia article about MacGyverisms would explore what writers had to do to come up with new MacGyverisms every episode, how realistic the MacGyverisms are, how the MacGyverisms served as a source of inspiration, how MacGyverisms have permeated themselves in various media, et cetera. This does not mean it's OK to indiscriminately collect plot detail. Plot detail is meant to complement real-world context, like the various points I suggested. (And man, am I tired of making counter-arguments, haha.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Merge reasonable well-cited initial paragraphs to series article; delete the rest. The specific details of per-episode difficulties is merely regurgitation of plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nominator. This article doesn't, nor will it ever, have real world notability established in independent sources. Previous AFDs aren't relevant to this discussion, but while others who refer to the previous discussions should note that in the last AFD no consensus was established. It is time to remove clear fancruft from Wikipedia and enforce well established policies Carlsher (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC). This template must be substituted.
- Keep, for all the reasons people gave above to keep it. And of course to stem the tide of stupidly deleting articles just for being fandom-related. --CF90 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, this is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia a more interesting encyclopedia and information resource than Encyclopedia Britannica. MacGyver is a notable TV show. And "fancruft" isn't even a real word (if you think it is, go ahead and try to write a decent article about fancruft). Notability is not something that can be "established." In response to Jay32183, this article is note solely a plot summary (nevermind that the editor who proposed WP:PLOT recently expressed at WT:NOT that he wants PLOT removed from WP:NOT). It's time for people who incorrectly use the word "notability" and who use the word "fancruft" to actually write articles on those topics. I would also ask the closing admin that if they decide to delete the article, please userfy it first under User:A Nobody's userspace, because I'm sure he would like to work on it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This whole idea of it having no "in-universe context" is ludicrous. People obviously find it interesting, and for that reason alone it has in-universe context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made by people for people, and as such we all are the ones who decide what has context and what does not. If people appreciate it, if it has context for them, if there are situations in which they desire the information that is provided on this page, then there is no reason why it should be deleted. --C4 Diesel (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's interesting is not an argument to keep, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. People can appreciate things like manuals, guides, and textbooks, but Wikipedia doesn't present these to people. It provides encyclopedic coverage of a given topic, and per WP:PLOT, plot details are meant to complement the real-world context of a fictional topic. As you can tell from this article, it is more plot detail than it is real-world context. Articles need to be written in accordance to policies and guidelines. Topics can be interesting and appeal to a wide number of people as long as they are in accordance, but this article clearly is not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This article may be based entirely on fictitious plot, but it is still worth keeping. Maybe it should just be more obvious that this is based on a television show, and not necessarily part of the real world. I see this article as being much more informative and useful than many one sentence articles on small, unnotable towns from third world countries, and soccer players that have done nothing significant besides being on a team. There are also multiple articles (stubs and full size) based on characters and other elements of plot, why not an extensive article on the actions of one of these notable characters. --omnipotence407 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you find other articles that you think fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are welcome to nominate them for AfD. There have been a number of articles full of plot detail, but they can wind up getting deleted if they lack merit. For this article, I don't think anyone disputes that the TV show is notable and that MacGyverisms within them are notable. However, this does not suddenly make it OK to write nothing but plot detail in an article. We don't include plot detail because it's informative and useful on its own; we include plot detail to complement the real-world context of fictional topics. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Though falls into the vast minutiae of popular culture, this article's references to science and everyday objects make for a thorough study spanning several subjects that expands the interest and knowledge of Wikipedia readers. This is of value. Truly it is unlikely that a reader of articles on chemistry and physics would trace information to an article about MacGyver, but fans of MacGyver who want to replicate the character's problem-solving in the form of experiments suddenly becomes students of the sciences. This is applied science—if not at its finest, at least at its most entertaining. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the article should be a guidebook instead of a real article, full of plot detail to theoretically educate readers to become students of the sciences? There are many resources of value in the world, but Wikipedia's goal is to provide encyclopedic articles, not guidebooks. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia. Where else can people go to find things like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.72.80 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it isn't more than just an encyclopedia. Its definition as an encyclopedia is one of the five pillars. It is not a collection of indiscriminate plot detail or a guidebook. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)