Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leroy Jethro Gibbs (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. and reject nomination. AFD is not the correct venue to discuss mergers. Mgm|^(talk) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jethro Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nom, contested merge to List of NCIS characters with an incorrect claim that the merge was not discussed. Article was tagged {{mergeto|List of NCIS characters}} for over 1 month. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible".

Despite being a major character in a notable series, notability is not inherited by the characters. This article does not establish real world notability of the character independent of its series. No reliable third party sources and just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Todd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Shepard for precedent.

McWomble (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The MAIN character of the show and the article has references that are not the show itself. (By the way, article being tagged, doesn't mean it was discussed). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being the main character of a show does not establish real world notability. The article does not even remotely discuss a work of fiction from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible". McWomble (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it should be merged. There's no reason to bring a contested merge to AFD, when there's Wikipedia:Requested mergers to discuss the validity of the merge. (See the related discussions nominated today) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've repeatedly removed un-sourced material from this article, but it keeps reappearing. The material here is not viable, since it is POV, in-universe, a simple plot summary, and unreferenced; therefore, there's no sense in merging it. WP:FICT per the original nomination. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep/close and trout the nom for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. If people are objecting to the merge, then the merge discussion needs to be re-opened. Stop trying to force things. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject out of hand - Same as the mcgee one. AFD is not for requesting merges. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close We have a place for discussing contested merges--it's not WP:RM, by the way, which is just for notifying about them--the place is the talk page of the proposed article proposed to be merged to. Perhaps it might be better if we were to should change our Deletion Policy and discuss them here, but that is not he current practice and should not be unilaterally forced. Merges are less likely to be contested if they are genuine merges, with content preserved. The material attempted to be removed can be considered sourced by the work itself, as appropriate for fiction. And FWIW, many of us do think that the main character of a notable work is appropriate for a full article, and one of the many exceptions to the GNG. And if we were to delete every article that violates the MOS, would anything but the FA's be left? DGG (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (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.