Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Fuddlesticks

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 delete. Tone 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fuddlesticks

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is largely a WP:ONEEVENT situation. It's not about a specific individual but it covers several living people in a negative light and doesn't really have any lasting notability. Received trivial local news coverage. v/r - T P 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells stronly like an attempt to prolong the embarrassment for the subjects of a one-day news story. "The blogosphere was abuzz..." -- oh, brother! EEng (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have a feeling I'll be voting "delete", but I'm going to at least try to clean this article up first to see if there's anything here worth keeping.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I hemmed and hawed over this because while there has been several news stories about this, I think that this qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT. There might be some issues of freedom of speech, but this just hasn't really gone all that far or gotten that much attention, all things considering. I've cleaned the article up dramatically, but this just doesn't seem to have any lasting notability at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
— Dugn8r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep.I think this should play out. This is an issue of free speech and this case will have far-reaching implications for years to come. --Dugn8r (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, who other than you thinks so? EEng (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of a tricky area because it has the potential to become something more notable, but it just isn't there yet. Free speech doesn't always guarantee big press. Phillip Greaves and his pedophile guide is a great example of this. While repugnant, his guide technically fell under "free speech" and many people were predicting that his trial would turn into a huge media event where freedom of speech was going to be under debate. But that never happened and the entire case was quietly settled and Greaves was never heard of again. The same premise is going on here. You have something that has gotten a bit of news promotion and free speech is being banded about, but you can't really predict how it will end. Maybe it'll become more widely known, maybe it won't. We can't predict it, so we have to judge on whether it is notable now, not whether or not it'll be notable later on down the line. (WP:CRYSTAL)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete. If it becomes more notable, the article can always be recreated (and is more likely to be in any case).
Please KEEP the City of Renton is abusing their power not just in this case but in MANY cases. They might be next on the Department of Justices investigation hit list. Their abuse of power must be stopped. They think they are above the law and removing this only furthers that idea. Please leave it there to see how it plays out and as reminder that EVERYONE should be held accountable for their actions! -- (comment left on this AfD's Talk by user Nagem319 [1])— Nagem319 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for either side of the issue and we cannot keep a page because something may or may not happen. Please see WP:SOAPBOX. I dislike people abusing their authority as much as the next person (it's a sore point of mine), but we cannot keep something unless it is shown to pass notability guidelines. We're not an advocate for either side and we can't keep a page just to make a point against anyone. That's not what Wikipedia is for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete as not a notable event. Its geographical scope is limited to Renton, Washington, a town of 90,000. Coverage doesn't seem to have lasted much beyond the initial news cycle. It may be too soon to judge its eventual impact, but for now it's had little. Happy to revisit without prejudice at deletion review if more comes of this. Lagrange 613 17:22, 27 December 2011 (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.