Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rufus Pfükke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rufus Pfükke)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 07:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is just a joke on a TV show that is of no lasting interest. I'm not from the US, so forgive me if this is, in fact, an encyclopedic joke. -Splash 05:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although I immediately knew what this article was about when I read the name. This is a one-time joke on one episode of The Daily Show, not encyclopedic. I hope you meant that the joke had no lasting interest and not the show itself, or else I'm offended ;) --Pagrashtak 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely put...that's exactly what I meant!! -Splash 05:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete jokesterism. Hamster Sandwich 05:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I just saw this last night and laughed my a** off. unsigned by DavidH--DNicholls 06:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: there's nothing wrong with this, if there is a wikipedia user that actually wonders whether or not there was a Rufus Pfükke, I believe wikipedia should provide the truth to anyone dedicated enough to think to use wikipedia to answer a question unsigned by 152.163.100.70--DNicholls 06:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I can't tell you how long I searched for Rufus Pfükke on Google tonight! It's silly to not have it. It's a potential serious question. If edited to further seem serious, it could be a valuable page. unsigned byY2kevbug11 --DNicholls 06:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am getting zero google hits. Martg76 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User's 13th edit (he is creator of this article). And if it doesn't show on google he couldn't have spent too much time looking for it. -R. fiend 17:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. nn and opens an unwieldy precedent. --DNicholls 06:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to The Daily Show] Snargle 07:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into The Daily Show. I've copied it into there, the only thing left is to apply the redirect when the VfD is over. JesseW 08:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I don't think this is important enough to be one of five items under "Notable stories and events", let alone the first listed. If the consensus of this vote is delete and not merge, I propose deleting it from the Daily Show article. If all jokes of this magnitude or greater were given equal space, the Daily Show article would take up hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. --Pagrashtak 13:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh come on, how many people do you think actually looked up Mr. Reameduptheass? Pfükke sounds like a real person. There are certain jokes that attract a level of curiosity that would warrant at least a simple explanation. Now we are complaining about the SIZE of the potential encyclopedia? Is the internet full? Thousands of pages on just one topic would be a true research oasis.--Y2Kevbug11 11:17:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not complaining about the size of the encyclopedia, I am complaining about the size of an article. My comments above are intended to counter the proposal to merge. My argument is that is if we are compelled to include Mr. Pfükke, then we must also inslude Mr. Reameduptheass and Mr. Shaft and anyone else mentioned. Now look at the size of the current text for Pfükke and multiply that by three to include the other two I've just mentioned. This is conservatively small, as this was just a small part of a longer segment. Now, multiply that size by the number of segments on a typical Daily Show episode, say three to pick another conservative number. Now multiply that by the number of Daily Show episodes that have aired since its first episode in 1996. What we arrive at is too lengthy for an article, hence merging is not a viable option in my opinion.
Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, though, as this argument may be completely moot. I believe the central question is (or should be): Is Rufus Pfükke encyclopedic? A fictional name invented for a one-time joke on an episode of a comedy show. Not notable, not encyclopedic. --Pagrashtak 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not complaining about the size of the encyclopedia, I am complaining about the size of an article. My comments above are intended to counter the proposal to merge. My argument is that is if we are compelled to include Mr. Pfükke, then we must also inslude Mr. Reameduptheass and Mr. Shaft and anyone else mentioned. Now look at the size of the current text for Pfükke and multiply that by three to include the other two I've just mentioned. This is conservatively small, as this was just a small part of a longer segment. Now, multiply that size by the number of segments on a typical Daily Show episode, say three to pick another conservative number. Now multiply that by the number of Daily Show episodes that have aired since its first episode in 1996. What we arrive at is too lengthy for an article, hence merging is not a viable option in my opinion.
- Oh come on, how many people do you think actually looked up Mr. Reameduptheass? Pfükke sounds like a real person. There are certain jokes that attract a level of curiosity that would warrant at least a simple explanation. Now we are complaining about the SIZE of the potential encyclopedia? Is the internet full? Thousands of pages on just one topic would be a true research oasis.--Y2Kevbug11 11:17:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is to my mind deeply unencyclopedic to set the precedent for adding every gag on a comedy show to its article and creating a redirect for that gag. Whilst it is permissible to force the redirect, as you have during the VfD while the discussion continued, it is not the done thing. Now, the VfD is basically redundant along with all the non-redirect votes that had been cast. -Splash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I don't think this is important enough to be one of five items under "Notable stories and events", let alone the first listed. If the consensus of this vote is delete and not merge, I propose deleting it from the Daily Show article. If all jokes of this magnitude or greater were given equal space, the Daily Show article would take up hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. --Pagrashtak 13:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Daily Show. Well handled, JesseW. Agentsoo 10:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Daily Show One cannot create an article for every funny bit on the Daily Show. MicahMN | Talk 16:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that move keeps the original article and merges the content to The Daily Show. We can't delete merged redirects, per the GFDL, which I why I find the forcing of this by already merging the content somewhat annoying. -Splash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-encyclopedic joke. Martg76 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This really is a non-encyclopedic joke, and isn't even notable within the context of The Daily Show. Quale 22:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Daily Show. Binadot 01:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn joke. JamesBurns 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. I'd also like to point out that e.g. German speakers don't immedeatly understand the joke, so maybe some tiny explanation on the English pronunciation of the name would be helpful (although it IS kind of obvious). Ashmodai 10:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. no merge. It's a single joke mentioned once, and unlikely ever to be referenced again. Unless we want the Daily Show article to mention all their jokes (and there are quite a few) this really should be deleted. If being "pfükked" actually makes it into the lexicon we can recreate it then. I ain't holding my breaht though. -R. fiend 15:50, 27 July 2005 (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.