From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Last Week Tonight. That notability is not temporary isn't a reason for keeping, since notability is not yet established, as is clear from this AfD. Sources exist, sure, but source alone don't establish we should have an article on a given topic. If the current article is too big to merge, then trim it. No arguments are presented that evidence a breadth and depth of coverage, but since some sourcing exists, merge is a viable option. Drmies ( talk) 05:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Jeff the Diseased Lung

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

While the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources (as shown on its talk page), such amount of articles are quite typical for main segment topics of " Last Week Tonight", one of which Jeff is part of, and the article could fail notability in the long run. Prhdbt [talk] 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (article creator). This character has received coverage by independent reliable sources ( WP:GNG) around the world. We should be encouraging the article's expansion, not eliminating it altogether. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
I should note that Jeff has received coverage beyond just the week after the episode aired:
Most importantly, the segment and character are credited for putting PMI's 'Be Marlboro' campaign into the spotlight. See this Consumerist article for extensive coverage. I think the impact of Oliver's segment and this character are being overlooked. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or perhaps merge into Last Week Tonight I see this character a lot like the Masturbating Bear or Pimpbot 5000 from Conan O'Brien's show. While it got coverage from the other night, I don't think this will have long lasting effect to maintain a full article. If there was a section dedicated to characters/bits on the LWT page though I could see this as being a part of that section. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Once notable, always notable. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. Flawed nomination. The nominator acknowledges notability by stating that "the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources", and then states that the subject of the article "could fail notability in the long run". This contradicts WP:NTEMP which states that Notability is not temporary. 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge to the show's article. There are plenty of sources sure, but none that establish notability that is independent of the show. Everything is tied into the point Oliver was making on the show. This is similar to a member of a rock band. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 23:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • First of all, the band member point: yes, there are plenty of members of rock bands with their own Wikipedia article. But there are also plenty more that do not have their own article because they are not independently notable away from the band. That's the key point, independent notability. Every single source you have posted in the article's talk page mentions John Oliver's name. That demonstrates how closely this character is tied to his show, and should therefore be a section on the show's article.
As for the church you raise, that is an entirely different scenario involving a legally registered organization, so you are straying into an "other stuff exists" argument. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 00:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, sure, the sources mention Oliver as the character's creator, but that does not mean Jeff isn't independently notable. I assume all of the Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption sources mention Oliver, too. With a bit of expansion, this article could have Background, Description, Response by PMI, and Reception sections, which would make it too long to fit into the TV show article. I think this article's current state is enough to justify forking and there are many more sources to further expand the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
"...but that does not mean Jeff isn't independently notable." Sure is easy to say that, but where is this notability?
Look at the large quote from the company in the "Response" section of the article. It is addressing the show and the contents of the segment in question, not the character per se. The character was one part of the segment, and the company's response is to the segment, not the character. I agree that at a certain point it may be necessary to fork the contents if it becomes too large. I don't think it is at that point yet but if it was, a more appropriate title would be about the episode or segment of the show, not just the character. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 01:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
I still think there are plenty of sources about Jeff to justify an article, but I wouldn't be opposed to Wikipedia having an article about the episode or segment. If others here agree that the episode/segment/character are notable (regardless of which), then this deletion discussion is unnecessary and we should simply be discussing the name of the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. as not notable outside the context of the show. It might warrant a line or two in the article on the show. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It makes no sense to merge. It would either be outsized (disproportionate) on the show's page or if we cut it much info would be lost. This page was already written and is fine, no reason to ditch it. Besides, I smell special interests behind the proposal to delete this. Lastdingo ( talk) 04:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
"Special interests"? You should be careful making vague accusations such as that. The plain fact of the matter is that this is an encyclopedia, not a running commentary for every gimmick from every TV show that gets mentioned in the press. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 07:19, 27 November 2015 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_the_Diseased_Lung&oldid=1068990982"