Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Tanner

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 to delete. Merging or even redirecting to a list can be done without an AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Tanner[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It has enough coverage within this revision of the character list, and there is no current assertion for improvement. I imagine that there may be a few points available, but those would be better placed on the list. TTN (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do any research at all into this subject? After all you made the same assertion about Nights (video game character).YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this is probably sourceable. Though most adults shun the show you cannot imagine its popularity among kids of tween age and younger (maybe finally waning). More pertinently Saget has made a career point of turning his back on the character.[1] --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add real-world context, of which there appears to be a fair amount in a brief perusal of Google News results. JavaTenor (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Article tagged stub so its need of expansion is known to the project the article falls under. As the article includes references in pop culture, his notability is there, it just needs to be referenced. IrishLass (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marvellously uncontaminated by real world content or assertion of notability. Better covered at the character list. Eusebeus (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V and WP:NOT#PLOT. I agree with Eusebeus, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate any real-world notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Lead character in a notable series. This Google News Archive search shows 189 sources of "real world Content" that addresses the character. Once additional sources are added, I am willing to consider upgrading my vote. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Alan's unintentional "commentary" above, whilst disagreeing with his !vote: his indolent google archive search, whilst perhaps providing "real world content", fails to provide the kind of real world content that can stand on its own without requiring qualifying quotation marks around it. Yes, google archive confirms that Bob Saget did indeed play Dan Tanner. Wikipedia notability policies, however, require slightly greater assertion of notability (pace Bob Saget). Eusebeus (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am deeply moved by the spectacularly hypocritical !vote cast by Eu that ignores assertions of notability and ample real world content, and justifies deletion by asserting that a merge should be the end result. Hard to tell though if the customary hypocrisy and haughtiness is intentional, or otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alan, I'm touched that you responded, since I know you normally like to stay above the fray and rarely remonstrate with those with whom you disagree. In that spirit, allow me to apologise unreservedly for my hypocrisy, spectacularly as it has proven to flourish on this occasion, and by way of remorse note that, you are, as always, right; that indeed 189 "sources" which tell us - 189 times ! - that Danny Tanner was portrayed by Bob Saget more than satisfy our notability guidelines and create ample need for this important cultural landmark to be treated with the fullness of encyclopedic rigour. My haughtiness must have, again, blinded me to the extraordinary irresistibility of your argument and no less the fullness of your evidence. A chastened Eusebeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am deeply touched that Eusebeus, the patron saint of unprincipled deletionism, has been stirred from his customary sloth, best demonstrated by his traditional inability to type anything more than the letters "nn" as an excuse for deletion of an article, marvelously uncontaminated by even the faintest awareness of Wikipedia policy or evidence of having read the articles in question that fail his latest arbitrary whim. Eusebeus has come out of his torpor long enough to spew his traditional venom in response to a rather clearly defined vote and then hypocritically blame others for failing "to stay above the fray". Alansohn (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I vote get a room. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Full House characters due to the lack of encyclopedic demonstration of notability (although it's possible to establish notability I guess, but this will take time). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eusebeus and Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources providing real world context. Significant coverage refers to the amount of usable information, not the number of times the same information was published. Jay32183 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete every character article for any television, movies, and book that exists on Wikipedia. In a country where 99% of households have at least one television [2] television and it's programs and characters are real world. Something that is part of the average persons daily life is real world. Danny Tanner was iconic to the point that Bob Saget desperately tried to shake the image with raunchy stand up routines. The show has been off the air for years and people still know the character, people in the real world. I've thought it before, and I'll say it now, Wikipedia would do well to have a fiction section for television, movies, and books that could house these types of articles. But if you are going to target them one by one, you should go after them all not just one at a time. And don't feel the need to lecture me for my opinion (which happens often when someone disagrees with the voting or why someone voted the way they did). You'll not change my vote and that isn't what this is about. It's my opinion on an article and a lecture isn't going to change my vote. Thank you.KellyAna (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ALLORNOTHING. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And your point? Did you bother to actually read what was written or not get past the first sentence? KellyAna (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're not discussing every character here, we're discussing whether there needs to be a separate article for Danny Tanner. But you seemed to suggest the reasoning of WP:ALLORNOTHING, which isn't really helpful ("Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, did you read what I wrote or just the first line? Try reading it all. I'm moving on now, I've made my comments BOTH about the article in question and my general feelings about these nominations. If you have a problem with it, fine, but that is not my issue. I've commented on the article, that's what I'm required to do. KellyAna (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        (Replied on my talk page.) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the all or nothing argument, you made other specific points. If Danny Tanner is socially iconic there should be reliable sources attesting to that in the article, and it has none. All the article does have is an in-universe character biography and pop culture trivia, and does not meet the muster for an encyclopedic article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:51, 6 January 2008 (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.