Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road to... (Family Guy)

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 no consensus. finding any clear consensus here is ... well not possible. Suggest that specific sources need to be found in the next month or so as the next nomination will most likely lead to deletion if it still lacks detailed sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 06:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road to... (Family Guy)

[edit]
Road to... (Family Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - article is premised entirely on original research. The episodes have not been the subject of critical or scholarly attention as a subset of the Family Guy series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep and Comment I wrote a very long "Delete" non-vote, but wiped and erased it as I'm now looking at the (featured) article Treehouse of Horror (series), which I would imagine is the template (and possibly precedent) for this Family Guy group of episodes. The citations in the Simpsons article are similar to this AfD's choices (e.g. IGN reviews of episodes). Certainly there are a great many more citations in the Simpson's article, and at least a few of those are from more reputable sources such as the New York Times, but even then the Simpsons' more impressive citations are reviews of individual episodes rather than of the clumped group. If this AfD is original research, then so is that Simpsons one. Irritating, particularly since I originally was writing a long diatribe about why no one would make an article about "Christmas Episodes of M*A*S*H". -Markeer 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:SYN. As the nominator argues, the creation of a set of episodes constitutes the original research. The individual eps have their own page, but there isn't significant coverage out there to show that the set is notable as a set. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYN Reads: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position." If you found something relevant, quote it here, don't send me on a fishing expedition to do your work. As I already said: "[original Research would be] saying Stewie is a Mormon based on things he says and does." Taking 10 facts from 10 sources on Family Guy isn't synthesis, its just ordinary scholarly research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking 10 facts from 10 sources and saying that "Facts one through ten taken together mean that XYZ is true" is original research. This article does advance a position that is not supported by reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except "Facts one through ten taken together mean that XYZ is true" doesn't come from WP:SYN, and I haven't a clue what it means. Wikipedia isn't about truth it is about verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not that difficult of a concept. Presenting facts one through ten from reliable sources is not synthesis. Presenting facts one through ten from reliable sources and then asserting a conclusion that an editor derives from those facts that is not found in reliable sources is synthesis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, concluding that Stewie is a Mormon based on the references would be banned as OR, since it isn't expressed directly in the references. But now I am just cutting and pasting from earlier arguments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as Are You The Cow Of Pain? said, the episodes as a set have not received attention to warrant an article and most of the article is thus WP:OR. The individual episodes have their own articles, but I do not believe their notability transfers to notability of the set. If the individual episodes did not have their own articles perhaps it could be kept for organization's sake, but that is not the case. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOHARM. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of the article is "Road to... episodes". This subject has not received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, and I have yet to see a single reliable source which groups these episodes together into this "Road to..." subset. It is WP:OR because it is a WP:SYN. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:PERNOM. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now further explained my vote. Gage (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i worked my comment. --Pedro J. the rookie 12:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then, no third-party sources that offer significant coverage of the episodes as a subset. Got it. Again, passing GNG individually does not mean that the episodes as a subset do. There need to be sources that are about the subset as a concept, not just sources about the individual episodes that Wikipedia editors knit together. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Road to episodes created by Family Guy are a parody of the seven Road to... comedy films" ties them all together
  • "After the episode's success, including its nomination for a Primetime Emmy Award, a second episode in the Road to series was produced" explains why more than one was produced
  • ..."entitled "Road to Europe". The episode was inspired by the 1941 film Road to Morocco, including its musical number "(We're off on the) Road to Morocco", which was previously parodied by the two characters, with new lyrics, in "Rhode Island" ties the 2 together by parodying the first Road to. CTJF83 chat 20:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cow of Pain requested sources that group the episodes together. You provided three instances of the grouping, but all three are from the same interview. So basically the concept of the entire article is based on one source? Ωphois 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone here is denying that the "Road to ..." episodes do form a group of Family Guy episodes, as confirmed by the creator and anyone that notices patterns. The problem is that the group has not received significant critical and scholarly attention. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing in the cited source that indicates that all of the episodes whose titles begin with "Road to" are parodies of the Hope/Crosby films. It is a 2003 interview with Seth MacFarlane, at which time only two episodes called "Road to..." had been produced. It cannot serve as a reliable source for the episode set as a whole. Even if it did, MacFarlane merely notes that the first two episodes parodied the films and no subsequent source indicates that the films inspired any later episodes. There is nothing in the cited source that supports the assertion that the second episode was produced as a result of the first one or its success. The cited source does not support the assertion that the second episode parodies the first one. The entire production section is a collection of unrelated information stitched together by the products of unsupported editorial assumptions. "Road to Boo" followed "Road to Foo" therefore Boo must be related to and inspired by Foo. No. That is original research by synthesis. The article is premised on original research and in the complete absence of reliable sources that significantly cover the "Road to..." episodes as a distinct subset it has no place on Wikipedia. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • acually no its not, putting the same director in every one actually makes them a bit realeted plus after provemire left they got colton who has directed every Road to episode, plus if i where to make a series of episodes such as The Way to... and i make ...to the futere and to a Funeral, and after thease two episodes i confirm that that its a series, and then i makes other episodes and no one interviews me again for the subject i think it would count, plus making the plots simaler as they are makes them in each episode(Stewie and Brian in an adventure together) with the title makes it related. --Pedro J. the rookie 07:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume that having the same directors makes them related and you assume that MacFarlane considered the first two a series (he did not say so in the interview) and you assume that MacFarlane intended for these to be considered a separate sub-series within the series despite a five-year gap between Morocco and Rupert and you assume that because they have similar plot structures they are part of a series and you assume and assume and assume. Assumptions made by editors are original research. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true if i rember in the interview the interviewer asked about the road to series MacFarlane did not correct him, you do not have o be every year god if it would it be like the THH which would get repetitive, plus for the last 3 seasons there have been continus episodes, having the same directors is not asuming nohin specially when Colton asked to make the episode which was gonna be called slyders be called road to the multiverse if you read the production i see your opinion respectibale and you do have some points at your side ut i belive as an editor that it deserves to be here as well as the other editors who voted keep. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the people who voted Keep either worked on the article or are in the Family Guy project... Anyways, the Tree House of Horror is an annual episode and is named as such. It is widely known in popular culture, and is specifically referred to as the Tree House of Horror series. You only have one vague interview that connects the Road to episodes as a group, with the rest of the article based on original research. BTW, in Supernatural (TV series) all the season finales are written by Eric Kripke. Should I make an article listing all the season finales then? Ωphois 20:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I just looked through the interview you referred to. Unless I overlooked it, there is no direct mention of the episodes as a group. Ωphois 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writers changed "Road to the Multiverse" into a "Road to" episode after the fact, and the eighth season premiere was supposed to be the "Road to" of the season, but was later renamed to be a normal episode. Treehouse of Horror has a consistent style and unique format. If the "Road to" name can arbitrarily be applied to episodes, then it shows that there is no real connection between these episodes. This plus the fact that you have yet to provide concrete references shows that it's not really a series. Ωphois 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two responses in regards to the misinformation Are You the Cow of Pain? and Ophois are trying to inject into this discussion: There is a five year gap between Europe and Rupert because the show was cancelled for nearly three years. The only seasons not to have a Road to episode are the first, which is understandable, the fourth, and the sixth, because it was cut short by the Writers' Strike, and aired in the seventh, which consisted entirely of hold-over episodes from the sixth season anyway. So, effectively, every season since the fifth season, not counting the other two, have featured a "Road" show, with another planned for the upcoming season. It has become a yearly hallmark, just as The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror is a yearly hallmark. And in response to Ophois' comment about the episode being named a "Road to" show after the fact is a completely uninformed argument; the commentary for that episode specifically states that the episode felt like a "Road to" show, and was named such for its resemblance to past episodes in the series of episodes, not because it was arbitrarily applied for no reason whatsoever. Also, in response to Ophois' statement about the Treehouse of Horror episodes consistng of a unique format; all of the episodes in the series follow Brian and Stewie, and exits the show's normal setting. Simply claiming the Treehouse of Horror series is unique because of a consistent style, while ignoring the fact that the "Road to" shows have also followed a consistent style is a blatant and biased attempt to ignore the facts. Gage (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, the gap has nothing to do with this. And Spies Reminiscent of Us follows the format, so why is that not a "Road to" episode? If the episodes are a "yearly hallmark", then why have you still not provided any third-party sources that deem them so? You can argue all you want, but Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. You can try to connect these episodes together all you want, but without sources it is merely original research. Ωphois 23:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the gap has nothing to do with this, then why did you not object, or even state such, when Are You the Cow of Pain? used the same terminology as yet another failed rationale for deleting this article? And thank you for the edit conflict. Gage (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, your claim that the only people who have voted keep are either members of WikiProject Family Guy, or users who have worked on the article, is completely false. Gage (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to your first comment, before you edited it and caused another edit conflict: Uh, of the seven, four haven't contributed and aren't memebers. That isn't "most." Gage (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) And once again, Gage (who wrote the article, BTW), I have to ask, where are the reliable sources that treat these episodes as a distinct subset within the series? You as an editor have, without support from reliable third-party sources, have synthesized a set of circumstances by which you define an episode as being part of a critically attested to subset. Episodes which otherwise fit the pattern but don't happen to be called "Road to..." are not part of this based solely on the fact that the episodes share similar names. The "Treehouse of Horror" model is completely inapplicable because ToH has received critical attention as a distinct unit both through the broadcasts themselves and through critical notice of ToH products. The Road to episodes have not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added four references, and highlighted two more. I guess those don't count either, just like everything else that connects the episodes together, and work against your unwanted opinion. Gage (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misread your additions but in reviewing the other sources they all appear to be passing mentions of the episodes and not critical attention to the concept. I get that you have serious ownership issues when it comes to FG articles but that's no excuse for copping an attitude and calling the legitimate opinion of a fellow editor "unwanted". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing tangent that got personal, as distracting from the point of the discussion
  • Here we go with the ownersihp BS again. I am a member of WikiProject Family Guy. You yourself obviously have an obsession with homosexuality, and transgenders, so much so, you revert probably 95% of the edits added to the Quagmire's Dad article, which you have complete ownership of; which is apparent to anyone who attempts to edit that article. And I guess if all else fails, name calling may be the best tactic to use. Gage (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, since I stopped attempting to edit the article, nearly every contributor has been reverted by you since June. And my memersip in WP:FG is the reason why I edit the article, not to make my opinion seem more important than others. Gage (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting that you point out my misstatement of "most" editors earlier, but then make this claim against Cow of Pain. BTW, looking at the reverts, most if not all of those should have been reverted. Ωphois 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gage, there is a huge difference between ownership and removing just plain poor edits. A glance at the history of that page shows to me that Cow of Pain was doing the latter. And I must say, seeing your comments and attitude here today (and those Cow of Pain just pointed out) have made me lose all respect I had for you as an editor. Ωphois 01:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you not provide these sources the many times we asked before? By opposition has slightly lowered (Cow of Pain is correct that it is just passing mentions), but I agree with Bignole below that the article is basically a rehash of all the individual articles. There is nothing I can find that cohesively covers the series as a whole. Ωphois 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you may say what you say ophios whats done is done, he may have added them later but who cares, ophios i now that your a high eficient editor(we have bud heads before) but i see no reason to delete and by my knowing the vote of the nominator those not count so i wish that to be removed, the artical stands on its own the gap between episodes which COP made clear that was a issue and now explained it dose not matter, look lets get something clear and thanks for your sacastic comments about SN season finales q paso una ostia, anyway what happens between the omments above that got personal, is that editors get mad or loose patience, and puting respect for editors was offline and uncalled for. --Pedro J. the rookie 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well its always like that as i know, the nomitanors vite is already assumed as you nominated but you do not vote your vote is aleady asumed by every one so your wrong. --Pedro J. the rookie 13:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's for FAC, something completely different than this. The nominator's vote and opinion on the matter definitely counts for deletion reviews. Ωphois 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This appears to be a single page that basically copy and pastes the same information from the articles for each individual episode. If this article is to stand alone, it must show that it itself is notable. Being a compilation of notable topics doesn't necessarily make the compilation as a whole notable. What I see here is someone who has inserted their own dialogue (the episodes have been generally praised....) and then included reception for each individual episode, which...shockingly (sarcasm)...is already on the episode pages. What this really seems to need to be is a section (with actual commentary on the idea of "Road to..." episodes, not just restating the same thing that appears on each individual page) on the main page. The individual episodes do a fine job of stating their own production, and their own reception, and their own awards won. They don't need a second page that says exactly the same thing, just stuck together. There's nothing actually new on this page, because it's a copy past job of each episode page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Cow of Pain and my previous comments. Ωphois 00:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is not original research if there are sources that back up the information. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "random mention"? Something is mentioned or it isn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessary to attack everyone who votes keep. Especially since you have been provided source after source, and choose to ignore them and pass them off as nothing. Gage (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to level false accusations that my responses constitute "attacks" but then I'm hardly surprised by your lack of good faith. You have not provided sources which offer significant coverage of these episodes as a distinct subset. Adding links to every Google result that you get for "road to episodes" or whatever doesn't constitute referencing to reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the concept. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, IGN and The Sydney Morning Herald are notoriously unreliable. You've made your opinion clear, no need for the condescending responses, when I'm sure they took your points into consideration already. Gage (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop distorting my statements to further your agenda. I did not say that any source was or was not reliable. I am saying that while there are a handful of sources that in the course of discussing one episode or another use a phrase like "Road to series" there are not sources that are significantly about "The Family Guy Road to... episodes". The most reliable source on the planet can mention something in a single sentence or a single phrase and that does not constitute significant coverage of the concept. Your interpretation of my comments as "condescending" is entirely on you and not my responsibility. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a direct quote that "One-sentence mentions are trivial". "He was born in 1912" and "Casablanca is the most important movie in cinema history" are single sentences, and would be fine as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Notability, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Nobody is debating that the sources used are reliable or can be used in an article. But the sources give one-off mentions of the episodes as a series, and does not go into detail. This is one of the primary factors of establishing notability for an article. Ωphois 05:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also per the same guideline: "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. ) is plainly trivial." Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except we have 7 sources each providing one or two sentences. That is one sentence times 7, and has the same depth of coverage as being mentioned seven times in one article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to WP:Notability. A topic has notability if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It says sources, meaning "one article" alone would not establish notability. Ωphois 18:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am no mathematical genius, but from what I remember from grade school is that 7 is greater than 1. You can correct me is I am wrong. We have seven sources, and the above argument was based on the number 7. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you just stated that the seven trivial sources are the equivalent of one significant mention. Ωphois 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I never used the word trivial. Trivial is a subjective word not defined by Wikipedia. I used "one sentence" reference. "Trivial" is your personal bias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, "trivial" would be the bias of WP:Notability, which clearly categorizes the mentions for this article as such. Regardless of the appropriate term, you yourself stated that the one-sentence mentions used are the equivalent of merely one article of significant coverage. Ωphois 20:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all the sources provided, I now agree that the series has enough coverage. However, my main concern now is that it appears to just be a slight hodgepodge of all the episodes. It doesn't really cover the development of the series, but rather the production info for each individual episode that is already on the respective article pages. For example, a large chunk of the reception section is brief reviews of each episode. This article is supposed to be about the series itself, not the episodes, so the reception section should mainly cover the series as a whole. Ωphois 00:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cow of Pain's latest point is very true. None of the sources cover the series as a whole, and give trivial references to the episodes as a series. Ωphois 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May that be true, when it is not as dirctor colton himself and macfarlane admited that it is a series, plus as Jaymax the media thinks of them as a series, so in souurces, and reliable IGN, etc, make COP´s point being solved. --Pedro J. the rookie 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they stated it was a series as a trivial reference. None of the sources in this article provide significant coverage of the subject as a whole to establish any notability. Ωphois 11:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a section within the main Family Guy article. The problem is lack of independent secondary coverage of the informal grouping of the episodes on their own. There is some identification of a series of episodes in the style of the old Road to ones as identified by Seth McF,, but there's no special meaning to the grouping by independent sources. Most of what's there - the production section - can be included in the main show article without a problem. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Took me two minutes to find publications referring to "now-classic “Road to …" series" and SMH with "his is one of Family Guy's "Road To" episodes that borrow ...". The allegation of OR does not stack up, since the set of episodes is already perceived as a series in the media. There might be a case that additional cites addressing this are needed (sources are sufficient), but no case for deletion. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Referring to" is not the standard for inclusion. "Significant coverage" is the standard. There remains no evidence that these episodes as a unit have received significant coverage in reliable sources. "Somebody said 'Road to series' in a magazine" does not satisfy WP:GNG. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (invited from notability talk page) This discussion has gone off on a lot of tangents. The core question is whether the subject of this article by itself (i.e. this subset of the Family Guy series, rather than the overall series) has received the required coverage by other sources. IMHO the answer is yes, such is shown in the reference list, and is also evident elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • You guys must be hiding these gold mine sources. Please share them! All I see is at best trivial mentioning as a passing thought in an interview. Where are the articles discussing the "Road to ..." subset? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing tangent that got personal, as distracting from the point of the discussion
Comments this a weird nomination where one Family Guy geek is trying to delete the work of another Family Guy geek. I use the term geek as a compliment. They are arguing over how many Quagmires can dance on the head of a pin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you pretty sure of that? If so, that provides additional context/overview. If so, I certainly don't see any consensus for deletion in the above. If so, just close it as "keep". Not that I have a horse in this race or expertise, I just dropped in per an invite at wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?, the nominator, he has a badge for promoting a Family Guy article to Good Article status. So, it seems that this is one of those things that spilled from talk page to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could not assume things about fellow editors. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone was assuming anything bad, just trying to understand the situation. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, Are You The Cow Of Pain? was not the one who got that article through GA, I was. He simply just likes to pretend that he was involved in that article's promotion, despite being asked to remove it by another user. Gage (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I myself can confirm it, i asked him to remove it from it and he deleted my message. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that without my contributions your horribly-written starter article would never have made it to GA, since I had to re-write the plot description pretty much from scratch and also wrote half of the reception section, my putting that tag on my page is completely reasonable. Knowing that it annoys you is just gravy. As for your message, Pedro, I didn't read it when you posted it and now that I have I still don't have the slightest idea what you were trying to say. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a strike against my miss spells. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from one source, they are identical. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And per WP:Notability, one source does not establish notability for a topic. Ωphois 02:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "ten facts from ten sources". It's ten recurrences of the same supposed "fact" (and it's not a fact in the first place). Regardless, ten trivial mentions don't equal one substantive source anyway. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of us both cutting and pasting previous arguments, just wait for the AFD to be closed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2010 (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.