Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein (dog)

Einstein (dog)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Einstein (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

It doesn't take an Einstein to see that a single motion capture role for a video game doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomming an article is one thing, but there's really no need to crack jokes about a dead dog. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 21:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Animal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge content into Red Dead Redemption 2, redirect page to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein; the dog's notability comes solely from the game and doesn't have enough singular weight to warrant a separate article. The article was almost certainly created due to his recent passing, which isn't enough to establish notability. Additionally, the page was a former redirect to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein, which has and almost certainly will persist as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Recommend Closing discussion since this is about a recently deceased individual for multiple reasons; among them WP:INSPECTOR and WP:BIOSPECIAL. I further object to the nominator's inappropriate cracking of a joke at the expense of a recently deceased dog. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 22:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Request discussion closure since apparently the fact that I wrote WP:INSPECTOR has led me to be accused of being a sockpuppet? I have reverted the edits, and so since further contributions are unlikely to be helpful I think we should just move on. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 22:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Merge content into Red Dead Redemption 2, redirect page to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein per Knightoftheswords281, no further argument to add. There is no further sourcing coming up in WP:VG/S's custom search engine except for the death. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Merge content into Red Dead Redemption 2, redirect page to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein per above. Dawnbails (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Merge to Red Dead Redemption 2 and restore redirect per others. The sarcasm in the nomination was probably poor taste, especially if the dog's owners end up reading this discussion, but nevertheless, simply creating an obituary is not a valid reason to have a Wikipedia article, and can lead to significant awkwardness when that runs up against actual policy. The article creator is clearly significantly emotionally invested in this circumstance but that alone cannot cause the rules to be bended, and this is a situation where WP:SUSTAINED applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Since I have repeatedly asked that this discussion be closed and the content reverted (and have attempted to do so myself) due to my own agreement that it does not meet notability, I am unsure how I am asking for "rules to be bended". The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  AFD discussions are not closed solely because of the creator’s request. Frostly (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  But they are supposed to be closed when further contributions are unlikely to be helpful and when an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 23:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please be aware an uninvolved closer must close the AfD, which should happen eventually. However, the involved page creator is not permitted to do these things and we are not yet at the WP:SNOW stage of things in my estimation, so saying it should be closed due to that is premature. Possibly in a day or two it will be, but that is up to the closer, who again must be uninvolved, to decide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Given the sheer amount of flak I am getting for this article, both here and off-wiki on the Wikipedia discord, This whole situation has made me feel so incredibly uncomfortable that it is likely best for the wikipedia community as a whole if everything was reverted and everyone moved on. Not only did the nominator make a joke about the dead dog that is the subject of the article, but on Discord it appeared that I was accused of sockpuppetry (a claim that has since been withdrawn). I've been on Wikipedia off and on for 15 years so I'm in no way a newbie, but I feel really bitten today. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I should also add that I do not believe WP:INSPECTOR applies here. It is about content that can potentially meet Wikipedia's standards, but sources show that this subject fails notability. If the article could really meet standards, it would be a WP:NEXIST issue (which basically says the same thing). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:NEXIST, "Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."

  Is there any indication that the nominator did this? The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 23:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be blunt... no. It wasn't a fantastic nomination, as it did not state the actual policy reasoning behind it. There's no indication it wasn't just done based on a face value reading of the page without WP:BEFORE. However, a lackluster nom alone is not enough to merit a speedy keep if other users come up with nothing when they do look for sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Once again, I am not wanting a speedy keep. I am wanting to have the content reverted, given the sheer amount of vitriol I have gotten from submitting this article. It has made me incredibly uncomfortable as a Wikipedian. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 23:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  No one has given you vitriol over this, but a great deal of patience and attempt to explain the process at play. You need to separate "disagreement" from "direct personal criticism". -- ferret (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please, just chill out and let it run it's course. You want it to close in the same way that it's bound to close, so don't worry about it. Go do something else and it'll take care of itself. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  So I did what you suggested and upon returning was immediately scolded by multiple people; I'm really not sure what else to say on this but this is easily becoming the most uncomfortable interaction I've had on wikipedia in 15 years.The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 02:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  You were not scolded. You were simply told plain and direct that you were going about this the wrong way. At this point, your aspiration casting in bad faith is becoming problematic. I suggest you move on. -- ferret (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ferret: you accused me of being a sockpuppet. Did you mean to? No, you didn't, and you withdrew it and we chalked it up to a misunderstanding, but it is not appropriate to suggest that I am aspersion casting after that. In fact, I specifically mentioned WP:ASPERSION to you when we discussed it off-wiki. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 02:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge with Red Dead Redemption 2 Redirect to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein Agree per above. Bobherry Talk My Edits 00:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Request for closure again, since I have again been denigrated and scolded and again been accused of sockpuppetry off-wiki on the discord (which I have now left). This is a clear case of WP:SNOW, attempts to fix the issue met with bad faith attacks...I don't even know what to say at this point. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 02:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Please stop taking things out of context. We were explaining that the creator of the WP:INSPECTOR redirect was the sockpuppet, nae the essay, the redirect CiphriusKane (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)