Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspector Sledge Hammer

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 to Sledge Hammer! . No need to retain material already in the article but this is a credible redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Sledge Hammer

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

WP:INUNIVERSE fansite article about a television character who has no sourced indication of notability outside the short-lived series he existed in. Was tagged for prod, but deprodded with no explanation or improvement provided. No need for a whole article about this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the show's article, trimming unnecessary material in the process as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inspector Sledge Hammer is a cultural icon of the 1980's. Entire college courses have been taught regarding this one character. Independent sources abound -- we just have to find them. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entire college courses just about this one character? Go ahead, pull the other one. Bearcat (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as lacking sources to WP:verify notability. The notion that entire courses have been taught on this character is not credible from my research. But I'd invite someone to WP:PROVEIT if I'm wrong. I'm quite sure I'm right though. Shooterwalker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Please enlighten us, what "research" exactly did you do? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you show us some proof of those college courses first? Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I taught one. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase my question: how about you show us some reliably sourced proof of those college courses? Bearcat (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to shift or confuse the issue. The issue before us is whether the article meets wikipedia guidelines, not whether one can adduce proof of a college course. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and whether the article meets Wikipedia guidelines is entirely a matter of whether you can provide reliably sourced proof of notability. So pony up. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that any argument you make about this subject's notability has to stand up to the WP:verifiability test. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL turned up measly sources. None of them reliable. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL brought up a couple of alumni articles, but no mention on any open-access online syllabi. Does that mean there are no pink unicorns in the forest? Can't say. For what it's worth, most of the information in this article is already in the article about the series, from the looks. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character gets referenced.

Sledge Hammer! was a Dirty Harry parody. Rasche played Detective Inspector Sledge Hammer. According to the TV historians Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh, “Sledge was the ultimate tough cop: square-jawed and totally self-confident, with no mercy for the wimps and scum who infested his fair city. That included jaywalkers and litterbugs, who deserved to be shot like all the rest.” Sledge favored reflecting sunglasses and liked to talk to his gun, a .44 Magnum named Gun. Rasche’s ability to be serious in absurd situations meant the show somehow never overshot itself. In one episode, Sledge solves a series of murders of Elvis impersonators by learning to do an Elvis impersonation himself. It looks more like calisthenics combined with a bad case of Tourette’s syndrome than like an act that would make the ladies swoon. In another episode, Sledge forces a miscreant, at gunpoint, to punch himself silly.

So, two TV historians talk about him. Sounds like a notable character to me. Dream Focus 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^babble 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. See comment below chromancerKeep. Though I was born too late to have seen him on TV, I've recognized his image, having seen it in the most random places all over without knowing what it means. For example, I once saw the image featured on this page in a post on Fark, a major aggregate news outlet here though I knew not what it meant. While by itself, this doesn't prove anything, it does hint at the cultural importance of this figure. Now that I have read this article, I can understand that the character's image is practically a synonym for the word "overkill." Anyhow this article is an interesting read, all issues and concerns on this page are fixable. —CodeHydro 16:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Striking keep, but see compromise below Chromancer's comment below. —CodeHydro 13:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All, and I mean all of the information present in this article is already in the Sledge Hammer! article. It's word-for-word. WP:REDUNDANT, anyone? No point in merging what's already been merged, and the character is not notable per WP:N outside of the eponymous television show. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 03:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise: Why don't we just redirect rather than delete? I have already struck my keep vote above after reading your observations. Redirecting accomplishes everything that a delete does without deleting the record of contributions while also leaving the framework (such as the info box and section organization) in the history in case the subject eventually does become big enough to merit a full article. Moreover, I'd like to point out that the article was created by a new user, so redirecting might be a nicer way that doesn't bite off a quarter of Safagheld's contributions. Moreover, there is actually some information present here that's not present in the main article, such as what is contained in the "Career" section as well as the organizational formatt. Redirecting would allow people to adapt the main article after the AfD closes. —CodeHydro 13:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chromancer. There doesn't appear to be a need for this spinoff article if all of the information is already contained in the parent article, which doesn't appear to have length issues. SnottyWong ^spout 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a redirect per Codehydro's comments above. SnottyWong ^confess 14:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to the series article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just making it clear that redirect without delete is an option since some may not notice that two people are supportive of a redirect since the relist. —CodeHydro 12:15, 17 September 2010 (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.