Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Parcell

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Parcell

edit
Kenneth Parcell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character not notable enough to warrant an article, article as it stands is pure fan article, an extensive retelling of actions in episodes as if telling a biography, such as the first time he tried coffee. Only thing of note is Critial Response which is two sentences and can be quite readily merged into his entry on List of 30 Rock characters. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then it should be redirected, being nominated for an Emmy can be covered in thirteen words. Anyone searching for it can be redirected to an appropriate entry on the list of characters. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment The first page of Google results (I didn't check further) from your link mostly aren't even to do with him and those that are, are not discussing the character. There's nothing there to justify him needing an article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply One doing it does not justify all? I'm proposing necessary standards, that is all and I agree that others should be removed such as many from Parks & Recreation such as Jean-Ralphio Saperstein and Donna Meagle, but others aswell, or Todd Packer from the Office, a minor character at best with few appearances. I tried dealing with that in the past and the user behind them would not see reason and bloated the articles out with any episode review that detailed the characters actions in that episode and I gave up. I'm not saying dealing with obvious fan bias isn't hard but it isn't an excuse to allow the articles to continue. Most of these articles are just plot regurgitation, the argument I believe for keeping Jean Ralphio was that it would make the List of Parks & Recreation characters too long, which is bull. I'd be happy to be informed of any AfD concerning characters in the future and participate where notability that requires an article is questionable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply That Venus Flytrap thing is mind-boggling and horrifying that it survived an AfD, and an unfortunate example of fan bias. There's no notability demonstrated there at all. Honestly you raise a point that needs addressing, needs to be a better way to deal with fictional character articles that cuts out fan bias because now I'm looking it's kind of irritating.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can scarcely vote on this, being a big fan of the show and, as such, probably a victim of my own bias, but a archive search on "Kenneth Parcell" and "30 Rock" reveals 93 results, the vast majority of which appear to be in reliable sources. I suspect the vast majority of them are also mentions, 1-2 paragraphs within larger articles about 30 Rock themes, and interviews with Jack McBrayer. As such, I am unable to find some kind of slam dunk individual source to establish notability. Notability is much clearer for characters like Liz Lemon, Tracy Jordan, and Jack Donaghy. That said, that's a lot of coverage (of admittedly varying significance) in reliable sources for a character whose portrayal has been the subject of an Emmy nomination. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Well I'd be content with a redirect as the name may be a search term, but i believe any vital info about him could be covered in a paragraph or two which can comfortably fit on the List page. I'm a 30 Rock fan too but I just can't see this as justified, beyond redirecting at most. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against: Kenneth is a notable character, and has too much information about him (like his age) to be merged into just one section. Please do not delete the page, I am working on the issues to make it acceptable for Wikipedia. NetflixSoup (talk) 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You can't make a non-notable character notable, subplot trivia about his age does not warrant an article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable character in a notable show, with enough character background to justify a stand-alone article. I admit this version of the article is a bit fansitey, and intend to begin tightening it up within the next few days. However, McBrayer's village-idiot portrayal of Kenneth is a central component of 30 Rock's popularity. Miniapolis (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then restore the article when you have information available that backs up your claim. That he is a central component of the show's popularity is a pretty bold statement to make without backing it up in a deletion discussion. And what character background? In universe or out? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that this proposal is at odds with WP:DEL#REASON? That is, the fact that an article currently lacks sources is irrelevant to its inclusion. BTW, arguing with everyone else in the AfD is generally not seen as persuasive by closing admins. Some have articulated that it can be seen as counterproductive... Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't lacking sources that has caused the nomination. And I am not arguing, I'm trying to divine reasoning in opposition because at the moment I'm just being given "Because". "Because he is notable", "Because he is significant", "Because there is too much plot bloat to merge elsewhere", "The show is popular because of him".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The original reasons for deletion were non-notability and that it was an article in need of improvement. As this photo (used in 30 Rock) illustrates, Kenneth Parcell is a major character and the other major characters have stand-alone articles; this demonstrates notability. And an article in need of improvement is not reason for deletion. This discussion is getting a bit heated; there seems to be no consensus to delete (and, frankly, I don't like feeling pressured (see comment above) to improve the article now, or else; I'm currently busy with the WikiProject Wikify backlog-reduction drive). There is no deadline. Miniapolis (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no deadline, I said restore it when you can provide the information that ascertains notability. Not do it now or else. A photo does no more ascertain notability than appearing in an episode of the show does. As even Ginseng said above, an admitted fan, he could find no significant external sources to display notability. I'm a fan, I cannot find these sources either. Liz and Jack are notable as they are explored extensively in real world sources and, to a lesser extent, I accept that Tracy and Jenna may be notable though I question that they are at least more notable than Kenneth, particularly Tracy. "Major" is subjective and being used in the same was as "notable", "significant", "important". It does not make him notable to use these words. I read the WP:Notable link above, he fails on these fronts unless external sources can be found to show why he is notable outside out of the in-universe of the show. Anyway, this will be my last message on this page, pending outcome. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading DEADLINE backwards. I realize that was put in as an alternative view (don't add it until it is perfect), but it's wrong-headed and incompatible with a volunteer project. If you don't like the fact that it isn't up to standards, WP:SOFIXIT, because there's been plenty of potential demonstrated in this AfD that is as yet unrealized in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chicago Tribune article implies notability [1], as does Rolling Stone's coverage of Steve Earle's ballad about the character [2]. Is mentioned in numerous publications [3], one of which refers to him as 'the most intriguing rural figure on contemporary television' [4] --I take it that means he's an interesting hick. The unsourced fancruft can be cut from the article. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are going to be any fictional characters with articles in Wikipedia, especially from successful television shows, this one would definately qualify. Great memorable character and great award-winning show. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (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/Kenneth_Parcell&oldid=1137968659"