Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons

Add links
Source: 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 of the debate was: With the only issue here being 'indiscriminate information', this comes purely down to numbers, so here goes:

  • Keep all: 11
  • Keep Way of the Weasel, Joy of Work, Dilbert Future and Dogbert's Handbook, delete others: 5
  • Merge: 10
  • Delete all: 5
  • Norway: Nul points

Result: keep WotW, JoW, DF and DH, no consensus for deletion or merge of the rest. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons

We most definitely do not need individual entries for each Dilbert book, especially when each article's description is extremely anemic. Delete. It's extremely excessive cruft. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am taking a long wikibreak effective yesterday. If this means that this vote should be withdrawn, please consider it withdrawn. However, I will not be around to address its results either way. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION: This article for deletion vote includes, as a group nomination, the following articles, because of the same reason -- we do not need individual pages for every single Dilbert publication that came out:

— WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. C'mon, we have every single damn Pokemon monster and every damn weapon system in Gundam there ever was. Well-selling books from a noteworthy comic strip is far less trivial by comparison. RGTraynor 14:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I had the time, I'd go through and do the Pokemon, too. Unfortunately, even with the expedited process, I'd be here from dawn 'til doomsday. Besides, "we let it go in other areas" is not really a defense to claims of non-notability. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least those articles are unique. These articles all appear to be copies of each other, with one sentence specifically related to the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantine Evans (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into an article about all Dillbert books, perhaps? Otherwise Neutral. Mystache 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an entertainment guide...yet. Brian G. Crawford 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment based on the level of pokemon-cruft around here I'd be inclined to disagree. We are already through the looking glass.--Isotope23 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Dilbert books (or keep) --Astrokey44 17:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't mind it being merged, but I don't think we have to force it. Just go ahead and merge it if you want it merged. Mangojuicetalk 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge: it appears that the only unique content on each page is a single sentence. The rest is just boilerplate. --Constantine Evans 17:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge) per Mangojuice. Deleting such a huge list of articles about notable books requires better grounds than "they're short." --Craig Stuntz 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point — they're not notable books or articles. Not because they're Dilbert, but because each book in and of itself isn't significantly notable to warrant its own article. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines for books are here. They are not clearly non-notable by these guidelines. What you say about individual notability is a decent argument for merge but not for delete in my opinion. --Craig Stuntz 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have a seperate article for every Garfield book. Individual books such as these aren't terribly notable by themselves. Seperate character articles are another thing entirely, because individual characters (and individual Pokemon, for that matter) can easily be referenced in other contexts. --Several Times 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of it into a List of Dilbert books article, but be careful to keep the business books separate from the ones which are just complications of comic strips (I was considering voting Keep on those, but perhaps not). -- Mithent 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't tell if this is an error or not but The Dilbert Principle doesn't seem to have made the list, even though some of the other business books did. Criticism of the articles as identical copies with only one sentence differing does not appear to be accurate regarding the business book articles. --Craig Stuntz 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, do not merge. Notable books by a notable author surrounding one of the most popular comics ever. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook. These books are actually quite well-known. The others I'm leaning a little toward Delete. æle ✆ 2006-04-27t20:06z
  • Keep - verifiable, plus, multiple listings are obnoxious. For great justice. 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my Nissan Stainless NCI-1000 French-Press Coffeemaker/Thermos on my desk in front of me are all verifiable, but they're not worth articles, either. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they're not. At least, not in the sense of the WP policy. Please read it. For great justice. 19:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"For great justice" is right that the stuff on Calton's desk isnot worthy of an article. But Calton does raise a legitimate point. Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia, as "For great justice" seems to suggest. Wikipedia policy makes that clear. HistoryBA 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two definitions of verifiability here. The common 'folk' definition, of 'everything I can see', and the WP policy definition, which specifically excludes things like Calton's desk coffee maker. WP:V is specific in pointing out that only things that are verified by credible sources are to be included. The 'my coffee maker' agrgument is bogus here because it is not verifiable in the WP policy sense of the word. For great justice. 20:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. I am saying that verifiablity alone does not justify inclusion. There are all sorts facts that are verifiable by Wikipedia standards but do not get included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy makes it clear that verifiability is just one thresholds that information must clear before being included. It must also be significant. HistoryBA 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. 'Significance' is a terrible concept for an encyclopedia. Art history is significant to me, but not to others, local history is significant to historians, not to scientists. Nuclear physics is significant to some, not to others. Pop culture is signficant to students of pop culture, not to clasicists. That's why verifiability is the gold standard. For great justice. 21:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than significance, how about notable? I don't think there can be much argument that Dilbert is notable; the question is if each individual compilation of strips is so notable, on its own merits, as to require an individual entry. Given the stubbiness of the articles in question, I'd hazard a guess that the answer at this point is no. Thus, my vote to merge 'em all into a list. If at some future date, someone discovers the Dilbert Code in one of them, then by all means spin it out into an article. Until then, the fragmentation of our knowledge of Dilbert compilations into twenty-three four-sentence-long pages doesn't serve anyone. Eron 22:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Notable' suffers from all the same fatal flaws as 'significance', but I agree that Dilbert should stay, because it is 'verifiable'. Merging to a list is perfectly sane, but does not need AFD permission. For great justice. 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly retract "significant" from my edit below, and substitute "notable." If "For great justice" disagrees, he/she should take up the matter on Wikipedia policy pages, not here. HistoryBA 23:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly, except that there are no policy pages on notability, because .... wait for it.... Notability is NOT POLICY! For great justice. 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." That's Wikipedia policy. HistoryBA 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, third time lucky, you've found something that is, actually, part of Wikipedia policy, and is so vague that it could mean litterally anything. Thankfully, there's nothing indiscriminate about a cataloguing of books. The section you are reffering to (as you would know if you had read it) says nothing about books. Thanks for playing though, better luck next time! For great justice. 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we're talking about Wikipedia policy, you may wish to check Wikipedia:Civility. HistoryBA 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on! I've been very patient with you! For great justice. 23:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per RGTraynor and Badlydrawnjeff, and because for the majority of the articles there's considerable potential for including notable facts (e.g.: "this collection includes the strip that introduces Asok," "Catbert is named for the first time in this book," etc.) --phh (t/c) 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those are, to put it mildly, notable facts. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. --phh (t/c) 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or maybe Merge with Pokemon or something. I don't really care, but I don't see any reason to delete it -- it's a pretty well known strip, the books are pretty popular, its not like the articles are need major cleanup, etc. Merging them all into one article would be OK too. Herostratus 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ardenn 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pokemon isn't notable. Ardenn 22:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides the fact that notability is not deletion policy, I don't know what you can possibly mean by that. Pokemon is verifiable, thoroughly referenced, extremely popular, can be written about neutrally etc. What is the difference between you saying that and me saying 'Mozart is not notable'? All you mean is 'I don't like Pokemon'. For great justice. 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the difference between you saying that and me saying 'Mozart is not notable'? Given the effect of Mozart on the world of music and culture -- and the world in general, I'd call that statement -- and I'm being charitable here -- utterly and objectively wrong. And given that notability is a requirement for GETTING an article in the first place, it's absurd to wikilawyer about their lack of explicit mention in deletion policy. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what, apart from 'it's obvious', is the difference? It's the number of fans? The 'effect'? What 'effect?' I'd venture to argue that the number of Mozart fans is not an order of magnitude different to the number of Pokemon fans. Sure, Mozart was a dead white guy, and, as such, has a historical head start, but I'm not sure of your point. And pointing out that your assertion has no support in policy (you're wrong by the way that notability is a policy criteria for articles) is not 'wikilawyering'. For great justice. 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • W.A. Mozart was a live white guy when he performed the actions for which he is notable, and he was a live white guy when he first became notable by WP's standards. "Number of fans" of a topic is a measure only of shallow but broad notability. Another inclusion standard worth considering is whether there was a substantial and enduring influence on that field. Hundreds of reputable books cite Mozart as one of the most influential composers in the history of music. Pokemon merely entertained hundreds of millions of kids and led to a few imitators. Is each individual Dilbert collection noted in reliable sources for more than "being popular"? (By comparison, there are citations for The Dilbert Principle being discussed by major magazines, and being required reading in university courses, as being an unusual source of influence on the business world.) 209.2.145.43 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that Mozart was alive, and that he is verifiable, and that it is verifiable that he had a substantial impact on his field. It is also pretty obvious that Pokemon has had a substantial impact on its field. Hundreds of books cite Pokemon as one of the most influential phenomena in computer games and card trading games. Mozart, ultimately, 'merely entertained hundreds of millions' of people and led to a few imitators. It is simply a question of 'what I like'. You like Mozart, but not Pokemon. A lot of people share your point of view, while many do not. The mark of maturity however, is being able to differentiate 'what you like' from 'what should go into an encyclopedia. That's what 'verifiability' is for. For great justice. 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Mhking 22:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to List of Dilbert books (per WP:FICT), but divide that into separate sections for comics-compilations and business-discussion books. The vast majority of what phh asserts could be added to make these less boilerplate is trivia, not encyclopedic, and would fail the "hundred year test". The few items of any significance to Dilbert's influence on society could easily be put into the merged list or into the parent Dilbert article; it doesn't help to have them scattered twenty places. Barno 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the following: Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook. The rest are cutter-cookie, unexpandable stubs about comic strip collections. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the following: Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook per Calton. Most of the others consist of repeating the same information, such as the fact that the book's genre is humour, its price in the UK, and re-identifying the same characters who appear in each book. --Metropolitan90 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as Metropolitan90. The collections should go; the (pseudo-)management books should stay. See List of published collections of Doonesbury for a sane way to keep the former. -- GWO
  • Delete -- These titles can be listed (with a brief description, if necessary) on the main Dilbert page. There's nothing to justify giving them their own entries. A user above says, "C'mon, we have every single damn Pokemon monster and every damn weapon system in Gundam there ever was." I would respond that problems in one section of Wikipedia do not justify bad decisions elsewhere. HistoryBA 13:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Dilbert Books. Eron 15:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least the comic books to List of Dilbert Comic Books. One or two lines can be added for each book, e.g., "First appearance of Ratbert," "Shift from Dilbert's homelife to office setting," etc. As a Dilbert fan, I would find it more useful to have this information collected in one place. Maestlin 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all. Sure, some are short, but are we running out of pages on Wikipedia? Does one large page versus 25 small ones really make Wikipedia a better place?Turnstep 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want them kept, try and make them better. Too many of these pages describe the "plot" of the book as follows:
It features around the stories of;
*Dilbert, The main character and engineer. 

*Dogbert, Dilbert's pet. 

*Asok, An intern. 

*Wally, Dilbert's co-worker. 

*Alice, Dilbert's co-worker. 

*The Pointy Haired Boss, The boss. 

*Catbert, The Evil Director of Human Resources. 

and many more.

--Metropolitan90 03:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Maestlin. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these into a single article. --Polaron 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all. We do not need a separate article on each book. Hbdragon88 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We already have a list of these books at Dilbert#Comic strip compilations with dates. First appearance dates should be in each character's article (see Category:Dilbert characters). æle ✆ 2006-04-30t12:09z
  • Keep all, well-circulated books from a very popular author. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can tell, the argument for "keep" goes something like this: Dilbert is well-known, and having separate articles for each book doesn't hurt anything. But does it add anything to Wikipedia? Anything at all? I say it actually does hurt by contributing to Wikipedia's image as a collection of trivial information. To people who think it enhances Wikipedia: will you please help me understand why? Maestlin 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that we neccessarily think the articles enhance Wikipedia; it's more that we think the articles could enhance Wikipedia. Forcing them to be deleted removes that potential, and for what? They're verifiable and NPOV, and this is not a violation of WP:NOT, which are the only relevant policies. These are encyclopedic topics: they're books, some very popular, of a popular series, and people might be interested in learning more about them. Mangojuicetalk 11:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My question wasn't clear--my fault. How could the articles enhance Wikipedia? In theory, what sort of information still awaits addition? It seems to me the content of each article individually is marginal, but to collect them all in one place would allow readers to see how the series developed over time. I enjoy Dilbert, and that would be useful to me. Right now I would have to go to lots of almost-identical articles for that information. This is not a rhetorical question and I am not trying to cause trouble, I just feel that the "keep" people are seeing something I am missing. Maestlin 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what specifically could be said, but I don't know that much about the books. I dunno, maybe a discussion of the running jokes in each book, or some of the longer-term plots that occur, or reaction from fans, may get them to a point where a list would be ungainly. Let me say that I personally would approve of merging them all into a single article, at least as they stand now, for exactly the reasons you say. However, I have a problem with voting "merge" on AfD unless it's a judgement that the topic doesn't deserve an article: otherwise, we should not be mandating it via process. AfD is a bad way to improve the quality of articles. Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Surely there is cleanup to be done (although not a great deal), but just as surely is each book individually notable, even as each may, at the moment, have only a stub (for an explication, see here, where I supported "delete" for a poorly-constructed article apropos of the Dave Barry volume Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week but where a consensus later developed for "keep" in view of the article's having taken on a form not dissimilar from that of this article. Joe 16:43, 5 May 2006 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Always_Postpone_Meetings_with_Time-Wasting_Morons&oldid=1084272392"