Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief Wiggum

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. No consensus to Delete and after a re-list, a consensus to Keep over Merge (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Wiggum

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another Simpson side-character that seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARY/fictional biography, plus some mentions in passing like ""All other authorities, whether police (Chief Wiggum), politicians (Mayor Quimby), or clergy (Reverend Lovejoy), are mere bumblers before the awesome power of Burns", " Similarly, many stereotypes in Italy are related to the corruption of politics and the police, and therefore characters such as Mayor Quimby and Chief Wiggum find fertile ground in the Italian context.". The best coverage I found is in here, two paragraphs, but all that it really says is, after summarizing his quirks/etc. (i.e. plain description) is that he is a typical stereotype of a policeman. In other words, the coverage of this character is even worse than that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cletus Spuckler which recently ended in a merge. D'oh!... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters per nom. There are some mentions of Chief Wiggum in reliable sources, like in The Simpsons: A Cultural History page 91, as stated, but not really enough to justify a full article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, weak, weak, weak keep. He's a well-known, easily recognizable character from the most notable animated series of all time, the character development section is worth saving, and he's got his own book, Chief Wiggum's Book of Crime and Punishment, and his own Lego figure. P.S. He's already in the List of The Simpsons characters, so redirect there if it comes to that. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clarityfiend: Yeah, I am a bit puzzled about the difference. Outside of the Simpson family, I think all other characters are recurring, not a single one appears in ALL the episodes. Those two lists may warrant merging. The one-time list is cool but WP:TRIVIA, so you are probably right it needs an axe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or *Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters per nominator. Lightburst (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters for (reverse) WP:ARTICLESIZE reasons. Notable enough to be summarized somewhere, but not enough real-world content to require a separate article. – sgeureka t•c 12:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Without solid sources, there's no need for a full article. TTN (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters. The character does not neede its own wiki page and should get a mention there. Dellwood546 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of RS available. WP:BEFORE was not followed. See these books for sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. There has been so much academic research on The Simpsons and even psychology and literature college courses centralized around them that even minor characters have lots of references available.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: If anyone is not following WP:BEFORE it's you. First, a number of the sources you mention are also linked in the OP. Second, some of your sources are plain bad. For example, #3 is a novel, as in, a fiction, WP:PRIMARY source, that just makes a reference to the character. #6 just mentions in passing that a music theme related to the character was played in another show, does not even discuss the character itself. Your post gives no suggestion that you read any of those sources, they appear to be mere WP:GOOGLEHITS. Btw, your first source is not visible for me (copyright). Is it visible to you? Can you quote from it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Please read WP:CIVIL. You are being rude. The fact that the character's theme is analyzed is interesting to me, and it's showing some analysis even if brief. The reference to the character in unrelated fiction shows the character is more than just minor but has become a cultural reference beyond in-universe. The first source has a rather lengthy analysis of an episode in which the character plays a featured part.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I called you out on the fact that you did not provide anything but a list of googlehits. Where am I rude? When I point out that I did WP:BEFORE and you accuse me I didn't? With all due respect, that was you being not so much rude as plainly incorrect. Now, I am sorry if anything I said made you feel offended, but I re-read my post and I have no clue what it could be. Moving on, don't take it as being rude, but the fact that you find something interesting is not relevant to something being notable. An analysis of an episode is suggestive of the said episode being notable, not of other plot elements in it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your characterization of the sources as mere google hits. I find your reaction to the RS an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I stated that I didn’t feel you had followed WP:BEFORE based on the sources I found. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.4meter4 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listing sources is not much more than listing google hit results. As I said, I reviewed most of them and found them to be in passing mentions at best. The ball is in your court: if any of them are in-depth, please say which ones and explain it in a sentence or two (per source). I am not asking anything that I wouldn't have done myself (or did, even in this OP). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are some peer reviewed academic works that can be used as sources:
  1. "Dubbing The Simpsons : Or How Groundskeeper Willie Lost His Kilt in Sardinia"; Ferrari, Chiara, Journal of Film and Video, 2009, Vol.61(2), pp.19-37 (Here there is an analysis of the character and how the character is viewed through an American lens and how it is viewed through an Italian lens. It analyzes the voice performances of the American version and the Italian version.)
  2. "The Simpsons" and the Law: Revealing Truth and Justice to the Masses; Kevin K. Ho; UCLA Ent. L. Rev., Vol.10 pp.275-275, 2003 (Here the character is analyzed as the embodiment of police mistrust by the public, and also analyzes the character's physical appearance)
  3. "The Simpsons: Public Choice in the Tradition of Swift and Orwell"; Considine, John; Journal of Economic Education, Spring 2006, Vol.37(2), pp.217-228 (Here the character is analyzed in context to other authority figures in The Simpsons as lacking any moral authority)
  4. "The mediation is the message: Italian regionalization of US TV series as co-creational work"; Barra, Luca, International Journal of Cultural Studies, September 2009, Vol.12(5), pp.509-525 (Here Chief Wiggum, in Italy known as Commissario Winchester, is used as an example of how the Neapolitan accent is used to indicate either inept or criminal behavior in an Italian cultural stereotype)
  5. "The Simpsons: Atomistic Politics and the Nuclear Family"; Cantor, Paul A; Political Theory, December 1999, Vol.27(6), pp.734-749
  6. "Torture and Justification: Defending the Indefensible"; Adam Raviv; Geo. Mason L. Rev., Vol.13 pp.135-1341, 2004 (here the character is analyzed as means of embodying America's justification of torture)
Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And now please quote from those to show us they offer in-depth discussion of this, not just mentions in passing. Your first source, for example, mentions Wiggum several times - but only to recount his fictional biography (in this episode, he did this, in another, he acted like thus). It provides a bit of analysis of the police in TS "The treatment of the Springfield Police Department in "The Simpsons" is hardly surprising, as it reflects a popular distrust of the police." but it contains NOTHING for us to use for the CW character since it does not contain a single sentence of analysis of him. It is a possible source for law enforcement in fiction article or stereotypes about law enforcement or such, but is of no help to our article. Which again suggests that you didn't even bother to read those sources, just found google hits that mention that character name. Sorry, that's not good enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the character embodies a stereotype/stock character doesn't invalidate the RS coverage on the character fulfilling that role. Further the three pages devoted to Wiggum in that article analyze his physical appearance and yes does point out that he is used as an embodiment of mistrust of the police, which contrary to your statement, is a substantial form of analysis and was the point made by the author in the published academic paper. 4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the author of that paper got it published despite a lot of it being pure plot summary doesn't change that it is a plot summary, not an analysis. Please feel free to quote any relevant sentences that actually go beyond WP:PLOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to see them in action in the article to revise my thoughts. It seems like a mix of something and a mix of trivial mentions. If it's something you don't have time for, I'd recommend sandboxing it and proposing restoring it later on should this end up as redirect or merge. TTN (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing more time for discussion of sources brought forward in the last day of the original listing period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Okay, folks, show’s over. Nothing to see here..." Andrew D. (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep due to considerably notability as verified in numerous reliable sources. --199.123.13.193 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or speedy keep. AfD's not for considering merging; this never should have been nominated for deletion. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This certainly falls in that grey area between pure keep and merge, but this isn't articles for merging. If someone wants to open up a talk page discussion supporting a plan to merge, have at it. Deletion isn't the answer though--Cube lurker (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there seems to be plenty of good sources online. I would not oppose a merger or sandbox. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Closer is reminder that WP:NOTAVOTE, and that some accounts here seem like WP:SPA and/or likely to have been cavassed on/off wiki for the purpose of casting a rationale-free vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:Please add appropriate notes on the accounts you suspect of being SPA. The only one I see is the anon IP comment. The others seem to have an edit history. I don't think canvasing is happening either. 4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second this request.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 4meter4, due to their strong argument. Also Cletus Spuckler is far more worse than this. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck banned user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What were the odds on that being confirmed as a sock? Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An immensely well-known character in one of the most famous shows. I understand it may be hard to find good sources among the mass of false positives but the hardly means they don’t exist as has already been shown. It’s also obvious that merging was the true intent so AfD should have never been started. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - that contains factual text like where "Wiggum" came from and he is more notable than the others in the police department. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 19:43, 18 November 2019 (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/Chief_Wiggum&oldid=926813779"