Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Skullhead

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Skullhead

Mr. Skullhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The character had no significant apperances, and there are no secondary sources whatsoever to assert out-of-universe notability. Besides a short OR-laden description, it's nothing but an indiscriminate list of all the "good idea/bad idea" gags on Animaniacs, which is just fan information that doesn't belong anywhere on WP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Minor non-notable character used almost exclusively in a gag that is in itself minor and non-notable. Article is merely an excuse to list trivial plot details from the show. Clearly never the target of significant coverage from reliable, third party sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable article or list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per DGG, AfD is not clean-up and merging minor characters likely wouldn't have raised a whisper - plus redirects are free. -- Banjeboi 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per DGG and Benjiboi. I agree with Benjiboi that this AfD was unnecessary, per WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL, "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." Ikip (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per DGG. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wait, what? This character wouldn't even be important if this were a 90s Warner animation wikia, and I daresay that most of the keeps here aren't familiar with the shows in question. (Bear in mind, the entirety of his role in Tiny Toon Adventures is one single thirty-second joke.) This isn't necessary for understanding what either animated series is; this isn't even necessary for understanding the one recurring single skit in which he features. (He's a skeleton mime. That's all you need to know, and you know that as soon as you see him.) The references aren't substantially about this character; in order, they are an offhand description of the occasional one-minute skit, another offhand mention of that skit, and the contrast ratio in a DVD set. There is no possible article that would benefit from having this merged; I can't even think of an article that would benefit from mentioning him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I would like to add that this AFD listed as part of WP:ARS's inclusion efforts, and shortly thereafter the bloc of keeps appeared. (I'm gratified that A Nobody at least made an effort to cite the article, even if it was just chucking '"Mr. Skullhead" review' in Google and using whatever came up.) All of them, save for RAN, all prominently display links to the Article Rescue Squadron on their user or talk pages. It may be time to review whether that project is in danger of becoming Yet Another VFD Canvassing Project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  As someone once said, “Bear in mind that anyone who cares about "voting" can use this group's tools for themselves, regardless of how they vote. Even if this were "Inclusionists for article cleanup", that's A-OK by me; "ANYONE for Article Cleanup" is a worthy cause.” Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Bloc voting isn't okay. If "the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes," why are three "Keep because I say so" votes from people who advertise their ARS membership, immediately after this gets tagged with an ARS template? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  WP:AGF. I could say some things that would go to discredit one of those "voting" to delete, but it's about the article not each other. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  At the very least, the fact that this AFD was canvassed on an inclusionist project of no particular topic and received a bloc of "per the other guy" keep votes all from the members of that project bears mentioning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Of what that editors believe the article is worthy of being rescued? Does it bear mentioning here or in other discussions that those arguing to delete have deletionist histories/leaning? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  If someone goes canvassing them, say, on a {{ARS/Tagged}} talk page template, then yeah, it does bear mentioning. Implying that I'm a hypocrite one line after telling me to assume good faith is kind of annoying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Not really. Seeking help with rescuing articles is what we're all trying to do. We're here to improve the project and do what we can when we can. Deletion is a last resort after all. And of the crazy number of articles nominated, I only look for those that I seriously believe I can help improve and when I reach a certain point, I like seeing if others can help improve it as well and as such I am always happy to help anyone else improve articles when I can. It's about trying to do what can be done to save our coverage of human knowledge in the form of articles that have some potential and I believe this article has potential. Apparently a majority of others in this discussion agree. Why they agree, well, that's up to them. I have seen DGG, for example, argue to delete enough articles even in discussions where I have argued to keep that he and the others above don't just blindly argue to keep because I argued to keep or because a rescue effort has been undertaken. I recall an article being recently templated that I and some others tried to improve and DGG still wasn't persuaded to change his stance. And at the same time, even I don't try to rescue or argue to keep every single article that gets the rescue template, because I don't believe they all can be saved. Having the rescue template is NOT an automatic indication to me or I supsect others above that the article is worth defending or trying to save. I don't see Benjiboi or Ikip arguing to keep every templated article either. It's a non-issue here, because it's one of the instances where a number of us, including someone listed above who is not a member of the ARS, do believe the article is worthy keeping and nothing more than that. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Canvassing talk pages is not helping the project, especially when it's done in a way that completely bypasses any clear record of that canvassing. Projects who don't have a clearly-stated partisan position who are simply advertising AFDs on a project page add notes to the AFD disclosing these sorts of things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing it as much different than the AfD template itself, which is of course listed on the AfD page for the day and so technically anyone who just watches AfDs could be canvassed in that manner or for example when articles are listed under specific discussions, but I'd rather believe that those coming here to comment are doing so for good faith reasons. And in any even presumably the closing admins sees the pages under discussion (after all, he or she has to when he/she closes the discussion and removes the AFD template from the article page). As such a closing admin would see that the article is templated and so too would be anyone who comments in the discussion and looks at the article before making their stance. If you think that we should have a small script note like "This article has been tagged for rescue" in the AfD as well, then, that is fine by me. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Keep in mind that ARS is attempting to build something of value, adding references to pages, whereas those editors who delete are all about destroying other editors contributions, unless someone else does the work. Why spend so much negative energy arguing to delete other editors contributions? At the end of the day do those delete editors feel like they have contributed anything positive to the world, to wikipedia? Ikip (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  And yet, four ARS editors apparently didn't feel the need to actually do the work of their project, but instead bloc vote after being canvassed. I like the idea of the project, but this new automagic talk page thing sucks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  I made an effort though, whether you agree with all of my edits or not, I did try. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed. I'd rather be arguing with you about the merits of sources and the potential for further sourcing (the good kind of AFD arguing) instead of having to deal with this sort of nonsense at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  I do still believe that there is a potential for additional sources; I know you don't think DVD commentary would work due to the length of the segment, but it might be worth checking what kind of special features are on the DVD, i.e. any making of segments, etc. I checked Amazon.com, and it appears there are at least three seasons of DVD releases, but haven't yet figured out what special features they have. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Well, DVD commentaries are out because there aren't any, but I can go watch the making-of stuff again, why not. It's mostly Spielburg backpatting himself and the voice actors reminiscing, so I don't have high hopes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have all three sets? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, although GI/BI didn't last until season three if I recall. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Okay. If you do rewatch the special features, please do let us know what you find as I am not realistically going to hvae time to rent them between today and tomorrow. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep as Mr. Skullhead apparently had his own show. Regarding the DVD release, Filip Vukcevic of IGN writes, "Thirteen years later and a droll skit featuring Mr. Skullhead...is still worth a chuckle." Tyler Shainline contends that "Some of the best characters were the ones that never got the chance to be overused, like Mr.Skullhead, a mute skeleton whose clips were narrated by Motel 6 spokesman Tom Bodett..." What these sources demonstrate is that in the first case, the character has longevity or continued relevance to the reviewer. In the second case, the character is described as among "the best" from the series which is a measure of notability. Because it receives coverage in multiple out of universe sources it meets the proposed WP:FICT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• That Mr. Skullhead is an unrelated character, in a pilot produced by a competing company. The entirety of what has been published on this character is two half-sentences in lengthy reviews of the series as a whole. And, as for WP:FICT, it miserably flunks the second standard, of being necessary to understand the work as a whole. He is only even given a name in Tiny Toon Adventures, the rest of the time he's just filler. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, it passes them:

  Article is obviously improveable as it has improved considerably since nomination.

  That it was the title of a show means that it at worst would not be redlinked.

  It passes the first prong of WP:FICT, because it is important within the fictional work as a memorable sketch worth mentioning in reviews of the DVDs.

  It passes the second prong of WP:FICT, because it is a recurring character with multiple appearances that demonstrates the nature and type of humor used on the show and as such is cental to understanding the show.

  He is mentioned in a real world context as well that indicates cultural reception.

  One could rent the DVDs and see if there is any kind of commentary from the show makers as to the character's development.

  As such, cases could maybe be made for merging and redirecting, although because the character has appearances in two shows the article does serve a navigational function and could/should be developed further to compare/contrast these distinictive appearances, but clearly there is no compelling reason to redlink or urgent need to delete the edit history either, i.e. no benefit to the project in doing so. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The character's role in Tiny Toon Adventures is one. Single. Joke.

  You fundamentally misunderstand both the nature of the shows you're talking about and the nature of the character you're talking about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  The character had multiple appearances in Animaniacs narrated by someone we have an article on. It is a memorable segment worth mentioning in reviews of the show. Those who created, work on, and read the article find it notable. Just because you do not like it does not mean it is not relevant to other members of our community. You have not presented any valid reason as to why this article must be deleted right now. It is not a hoax, not something made up in one day, not a personal attack on someone, etc. It is an element of a notable show that can be verified in secondary sources. We don't need much beyond that to justify inclusion on the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  You'll find that "Second casino cashier" in a two-star film was played by someone who has a Wikipedia article, if it was a speaking role, and there's no rush to make Second casino cashier (The Cooler) (and thank goodness). It's an element so minor that despite devoting 1000+ words to Animaniacs, the paltry few reviews you found can't even be bothered to devote a whole sentence to it.

  I am incredulous because this is a part of Animaniacs so minor that it would only bear mention in passing in the paperless Animaniacs encyclopedia anyone can edit, let alone a general one. The fact that it also fails WP:GNG (these references are not substantial, devoting less than a sentence each to the subject) and WP:FICT (this is not necessary to understand a viewing of Animaniacs nor is it necessary to understand what Animaniacs is) are secondary. The idea that DVD commentaries might have something relevant is especially entertaining: not only do the DVD sets not have commentary (a typical situation for childrens' shows), but there'd scarcely be any time, as Good Idea/Bad Idea sketches are usually about 20 seconds long. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Second casino cashier is a generic name. Mr. Skullhead is a specific names. It's apples and orangers. The reviews that I found do have sentence worth of material to the character and that was just with a quick search. This is a major aspect of the show and it is relevant here, because we are not simply a general encylopedia as we incorporate elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. It passes WP:GNG because these are reliable secondary sources and WP:FICT because it is necessary to understanding the presentation and style of Animaniacs. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note to closing administrator this article has been significantly improved since the article was nominated.[1] Ikip (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  With the addition of references that don't even devote a full sentence to this extremely minor character, in the event that the closing administrator needed some one-sided summaries of the above discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  They are nevertheless multiple references in reliable secondary sources. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  But not significant coverage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  I think they are significant, because they mention this character in a particular manner. The show has so many characters that aren't mentioned in reviews and yet this one is mentioned as memorable. To me that is significant, which is further proof of how "significant" is a subjectively interpreted word. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  User:MichaelQSchmidt: "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." A nobody's contributions to article: 3 Blacks deletions in the article: 2 Blacks contributions: 0 Ikip (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  I read both reviews, and they call out pretty much every skit that appears in that season. (When you write 1000 words about a show whose plots are generally one-sentence premises, you'll either have to cover every detail or go way, way off-topic.) Both mentions are in the context of a mention of several different skits, referenced as a group. Less than half a sentence in a review is not dealing with the subject directly and in detail, it's dealing with the subject briefly in passing.

  Ikip, applying critical thinking and confirming that sources back the cited claims is important work. Contributors to Wikipedia are also editors. Counting coup on AFD, on the other hand, is not terribly useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Another source that can be used to referenced the bit in the lead about Skullhead Bonyhands and Edward Scissorhands is:

  Showtime series for `tweens' don't shy away from gay themes

  Pay-Per-View - Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 24, 1993

  In typical clever fashion, Steven Spielberg Presents Animaniacs (Thursday ... And in true Animaniac spoof-fashion, "Skullhead Bonyhands" is a sendup of Tim ...

  But it's a PPV one, so, not sure if anyone happens to have that or not? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Here's an abstract. The title is apparently referring to an unrelated episode of a series called "Ready or Not". Dunno what if anything it says that's relevant here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  The line that stood out was of course "In typical clever fashion, Steven Spielberg Presents Animaniacs (Thursday ... And in true Animaniac spoof-fashion, "Skullhead Bonyhands" is a sendup of Tim ...", which obviously could be used to cite the lead bit about that segment being a spoof of something else, which is out of universe and if from Los Angeles Times would serve as a reliable secondary source. Part of the problem with Google News is a lot of PPV or subscription results. For better or worse, this guy says, "Mr Skullhead was one of the greatest characters on Animaniacs, and, in addition to his brilliant Hamlet performance, it was his Good Idea, Bad Idea shorts that were among the more brilliant of the sho…" Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure what if any factual claims a random guy's rave on Blogspot could verify. As for the LA Times article, it would probably be a good source in a parent article rather than milking it for offhand trivial claims, but we've had this discussion before, eh? End result is we have something barely mergeable, it gets merged after the AFD, and I have another redirect on my watchlist to keep an eye on so that someone who thinks a dialogue-less character from a 20-second skit is Teh Best Thing Evar doesn't end up scratching the butter over ever more burnt toast.

  Rambling aside, if anyone could take a look at that LA Times article and let us know what it means (apparently they don't like my credit card), that'd be super. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  The article is in two parts, the first reviewing "Ready or Not", the second reviewing the Animaniacs Halloween two-part special, made up of several episodes the last of which is the Mr. Skullhead one. The full quote of the final paragraph is "And in true Animaniac spoof-fashion, "Skullhead Bonyhands" is a sendup of Tim Burton's 'Edward Scissorhands.' For ages 2 to 8." I do object to the implication that people over the age of 8 wouldn't enjoy Animaniacs, but I do think this is a reliable source for the fact that this was a parody of the Tim Burton film. DHowell (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• This issue seems to be that the article likely should have been proposed for merger rather than yet another AfD removing the content altogether. Many characters in a list of characters indeed grow into having their own articles. AfD simply isn't the best venue for this effort. I suggest you let the AfD run it's course and simply post to merge the content into an appropriate parent or list article. -- Banjeboi 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Pending Keep: I believe the new references in the reception section answer the nom's notability concerns. I myself will be more than happy to give it a "keep" vote if someone either sources or removes the stuff in the lead. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I've referenced the origin from Elmyra's bow in Tiny Toon Adventures in the article. Potential merges to List of characters in Animaniacs or elsewhere should be discussed on the article's talk page. And AMIB is simply incorrect in saying that this "the entirety of his role in Tiny Toon Adventures is one single thirty-second joke." It was actually a segment in two TTA episodes, in addition to several thirty-second jokes plus a full-length episode and several more appearances in Animaniacs. DHowell (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, I've changed my !vote. Also a FU pic couldn't hurt either. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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.