Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie the Giant Chicken

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 redirect. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie the Giant Chicken

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

Decision of previous discussion was to delete Soxwon (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That was an older version, and while I can't see it, this version has plenty of 3rd party coverage, including a book, to meet WP:GNG CTJF83 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not certain that any of the references listed constitute enough coverage for the article's subject to be considered notable, but am willing to be overruled. Yeah, there's a book listed, but isn't the book -about- Family Guy? If so, that argument would seem to suggest that any character mentioned in a book about the show in which the character appears is notable...I can't support that notion. Doniago (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about the book....CTJF83 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I try. (smile) Doniago (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the character is given non-trivial mention in a book NOT created by the same team, even if it is an official tie-in, that would indeed be one source supporting notability, but I don't know that that is the case here. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, as prev discussion - not independently notable outside of the show itself; lacking coverage in independent sources; hence original research. Add a redir to List of characters in Family Guy afterwards, I suppose. But - not notable enough for inclusion as an article Chzz ► 17:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 Has apparently been deleted at AfD twice now.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or redirect, whatever. Dumb fanboy cruft whose notability is not supported by independent, reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources to IGN, TVSquad, and even Forbes. CTJF83 21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Forbes link is dead, but from the title is just a review of Blue Harvest. All the others are just episode guides and similar. No one is disputing that the character exists (which is what those citations show), what is missing is evidence that the character is notable in and of itself to need an article, and none of the refs shows that.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything new and useful to the List of Family Guy characters entry, (which may amount to nothing more than a redirect...) but there does not appear to be enough here for independent/standalone article notability. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't speedy — this article is completely different from the one deleted at the previous AFD, so it doesn't qualify for G4. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nyttend. Gage (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I don't believe Nyttend actually said "keep", though, only that since it was sufficiently different from the previous version that was deleted, it is ineligible to be speedily deleted without a discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, if the issue is the basic notability of the subject, a rewrite doesn't make any difference as the problem is not in the article. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still no independent, third-party coverage (episode guides and Family Guy tie-in products certainly notwithstanding). The only grounds I can see for a Keep is consensus on fictional character notability having changed, which I don't think has happened. Yet. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article does not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline since it has no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, only trivial mentions in reference to the episodes where it has appeared. None of the references in the reception section of the article treats in detail "Ernie the Giant Chicken" as a subject, but rather the references are reviews of Family Guy episodes or a single mention in a trivia-like article, so no reference in the article shows notability for "Ernie the Giant Chicken". Jfgslo (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge, if the current sources aren't enough to justify Ernie's own article, then they could still be useful in the list. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alright, I just found another source, IGN's favourite Family Guy characters, that is independent from his appearances in episodes. Any other help finding sources would be appreciated. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found this as well. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apparently he also appeared on a t-shirt. I separated "Appearances" into it's own section outside of "Role in Family Guy", as a list of all of his appearances really isn't related to his role, at least not in its current state. Alright, I think that's it for now. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article and this article from IGN provide nontrivial coverage about Ernie the Giant Chicken. These third-party reliable sources do, in my opinion, address the concerns raised by Jfgslo (talk · contribs) — "None of the references in the reception section of the article treats in detail "Ernie the Giant Chicken" as a subject, but rather the references are reviews of Family Guy episodes or a single mention in a trivia-like article, so no reference in the article shows notability for "Ernie the Giant Chicken".
The articles each provide three paragraphs of coverage about Ernie the Giant Chicken's role and history on the show. A short quote from the latter article:
Ernie is as consistent as he is unrelenting. His MO is as follows: Interrupt episode mid-scene, furrow his brow, narrow his beak, and proceed to beat the living hell out of Peter.
...
For a rivalry that started over a coupon, Ernie has become a welcomed addition to the Family Guy brand of funny. Sure, he's one-note, but, again, you = wrongness if that one joke doesn't make you laugh every time.
I believe there is enough material here to justify a stand-alone article. Cunard (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less than impressed by 2 blurbs (from the same site) in a Top 10/25 countdown of favorite characters. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic justifies a stand alone article, no valid reason to delete. Ronk01 talk 05:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That amounts to a WP:ITSNOTABLE vote, which will likely be discarded in the final analysis. Do you have a substantive reason? Tarc (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The Reception is largely criticism to due with the structure of the scenes - this is an article about the character in the scenes. "Ernie" does not influence the criticism, nor does he influence the praise. Basically, aside from a couple references, it is all to do with the pacing and length of the scenes rather than the character himself. While it is an admirable effort to try to make an article of this character considering how articles such as Meg Griffin and Chris Griffin are in a terrible state of affairs (and probably worse off than this one), I do not see any way that this will develop into a notable subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:06, 12 February 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.