Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver

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 per consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of problems solved by MacGyver

Wikipedia is not a directory. Article is an expansion on plot summeries, which is a nono according to WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE with regards to plot summaries. Dstanfor 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article contains, as far as I've seen, the most complete list and descriptive lits of MacGyver's solutions. As such, it's a resource. It took me quite a while to find it this morning after finding out it had been deleted. Finog (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Sourcing is a problem here, but this doesn't seem at all indiscriminate. The MacGyver solutions are the heart of the show, in fact, and have popular currency in a way that lists of Star Trek starships don't. Keep. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Contrary to nom, the article isn't an "expansion on plot summaries". Highfructosecornsyrup 21:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:FICT suggests that plot summary articles should not routinely exist. However, 1) It recognizes exceptions, and, 2) This is a single article collecting, distilling and summarizing information not present elsewhere. This article is much better at showing the essential nature of MacGyver's character than the main article, and it does it by showing instead of telling. It is also an inspiring insight into his traits of intelligence, perseverence, and education which is broad, in depth, scientifically sound (mostly), and daring. — EncMstr 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. Cbrown1023 22:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft with OR issues. Take it to Wikia, but not appropriate for encyclopedia Bwithh 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The page List of MacGyver episodes already exists. Information should be on a MacGyver wiki. Marcsin 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge w/ List of MacGyver episodes (Vote change) Marcsin 13:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep WP:NOT a directory, but neither is this. The article needs cleanup, but the information is valuable and of substantial pop culture importance. I don't think sourcing is problem; the episodes themselves can be used as references in accordance with policy. — brighterorange (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The problems solved by MacGyver are the central aspect of the series and have given rise to pop-culture references and a linguistic expression. The collection of information is not indiscriminate, though it may also not be entirely complete. Sourcing is not a problem as the episodes themselves can be referenced in accordance with WP policy and not be considered OR. I do, however, suggest a cleanup/reformatting so as not to be so similar to an episode list. Perhaps organization by the main scientific principle used would be better.LaMenta3 07:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep article is encyclopedic, and highly notable. MacGyver was known for his problem solving skills, and everybody knows who MacGyver is. I also agree with User:Brighterorange, WP policy allows episodes to be used as references/sources. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — nice article which is encyclopaedic, from a notable show, as a side note WP:NOT is never a good reason to delete. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I'm going to add his favourite fans/cameo appearance - The Bouvier sisters in The Simpsons! SkierRMH,09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that these are just plot summaries, and I think this is one of the many cases where "indiscriminate collection of info" is used as an excuse to eliminate anything you don't like. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is the kind of systemic bias (things that white american college kids find interesting) that will be the death of wikipedia. L0b0t 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm citing WP:BIAS. If you like, I can also cite WP:WAF, WP:NOT, and WP:EPISODE. L0b0t 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wikiproject, not a policy, guideline, or even an essay. BIAS also says their goal is fixing systemic bias by filling in the gaps, not removing stuff in the effort to reduce the amount of stuff "white college guys like". ("In general, this project focuses on remedying omissions (either of entire topics, or of particular material within the potential scope of existing articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions") I couldn't find a wp guideline on systemic bias, is there one? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it means more that we should get to work on List of characters in Escrava Isaura "g"--T. Anthony 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that. However, that does not change my opinion regarding useless fancruft such as this article. There is nothing here that can't be covered fully by the MacGyver, or is not already covered in great detail at the MacGyver wiki. There are many, many places for this sort of information, the general purpose encyclopedia is not one of them. L0b0t 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: MacGyver's ingenuity is indeed key to the show, but can be demonstrated through a handful of examples; an extensive list isn't required and seems to me to be WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE trivia. (On the other hand, I don't see significant WP:NOR or WP:V problems; the entries seem to be almost exclusively simple description of events that are verifiable through watching the show.) Jordan Brown 17:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NOT: "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." I believe this qualifies. —Trevyn 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This interesting article is more than plot summaries, as it focusses on the science and technology used in the tricks in each episode. A plot summary would pay more attention to motivations or the fate of the characters, which is prety much ignored in this article. Since they are sourced to the episode, they are not original research per se. If comments and observations about which are plausible or implausible are added and have no source other than the opinion of the editor, those bits of o.r. can be edited out. Some of the plausibility comments are sourced to independent third partiey sources such as Mythbusters, which is acceptable. There is no good reason why hundreds or thousands of other articles about books, plays, movies, TV shows, and video games can describe their content sourced only to the work and this article cannot. The point of the article is not to show that the McGyver character is clever, it is to cover the technology and science. It would benefit from Wikilinking to articles covering the scientific or technolological bases of the gimmicks. Edison 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Put it on a TV wiki of some sort, not here. RobJ1981 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a MacGyver Wiki that covers this pretty well already. L0b0t 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's covered in another place" seems like a pretty weak reason to not cover something in Wikipedia. After all, everything on Wikipedia is available somewhere else or it'd be OR... one of the points of Wikipedia is to bring information together and organize it, so that you can look in one place to answer many questions. The question in my mind is where you draw the line for notability. Jordan Brown 06:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

send to the mc.gyver wiki aka delete while it is a very interesting and factual article, it dosn't really belong on wikipedia, it's fan stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CchristianTehWazzit (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as per EncMstr. - Peregrinefisher 21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat keep, somewhat delete It looks like this will be kept from the response so far, or at least a non-consensus. I'm a bit torn about this myself, being a big fan of the show. However, I'm concerned about the level of detail that the article is diving into. One could almost call it a derivative of the original show, and somewhat of a copyvio. Yes, I know, the chances of us getting sued over something like that is next to none, but not getting caught is no reason to leave the article as it is. I think if we change the list so that it is more of a list of examples, and/or notable problems solved, that would be an improvement. There's no reason to include every single problem solved by MacGyver, as that's a MAJOR part of the show. We shouldn't be working to recap such major elements point for point. We got some really good info here, but there is a problem when you try to include every little detail. Keep for now and improve, I'd say. -- Ned Scott 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much weight this will carry, but I'm inclined to vote DELETE. Some of the examples of problems MacGuyer solved can be included in the main article, but other Web sites — including the MacGuyver wiki and fan sites — ought to be covering these topics rather than Wikipedia. [[Briguy52748 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep per Brighterorange, Edison, and per Jordan Brown's response to RobJ1981 and L0b0t. JSarek 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. However, all this information could probably be used to set up a series of articles on every single episode of MacGyver, similar to those of Star Trek or Simpsons. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what we need less of. Wikipedia is not a fan's guide to television episodes, there are many resources out there for that. For a show, let alone a season or individual episode, to have an article it has to assert the relevance and importance of the show in a real world context. Did the show change the format for its genre, did it bring about cultural change or spark discussion or legislation on any topic? Please try to remember that this is a general purpose encyclopedia that is trying to present a worldwide perspective. Start with an article on the seasons of the show, put this crufty effluvia there. L0b0t 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so true. But rather that than this list. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of MacGyver episodes. Changing my vote. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:22, 13 December 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.