Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacKenzie McHale

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 delete. ~~Insufficient notability.~~ That was poorly phrased, I meant "the sources cited thus far are insufficient to establish notability". —Darkwind (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzie McHale

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

While the Newsroom is a notable show, starting character pages seems a little premature. The show has been on for two seasons, a total of 20 episodes or so. The cultural impact is not that of say Star Trek or the Sopranos. PRODded but rejected by article creator. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article. NN fictional character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the female lead on a multi-seasonshow, the character is more notable than the nominator indicates, and the article needs time to be developed. What shouldn't be happening is that it shouldn't be used to further the Oxford/Cambridge Union joke from the last episode. --Drmargi (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. A notable show does not equal a notable character. If no sources exist, then the character is not notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but not what I said. --Drmargi (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article. It can always be split out should it gain the necessary references to establish its notability. TTN (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character is far more notable than the nominator believes and as for it being "too soon" for character articles, that is not actually true. See Rome (TV series) and the character page Atia of the Julii which has as many references and is 8 years old. That series began in the summer of 2005 and the Atia article begun in November of 2005. That series only lasted two seasons and both are HBO productions and aired in similar times slots (Rome on Sunday nights at 9:00pm and The Newsroom at 10:00pm on Sunday nights).

The two main characters should have articles for this series. I also believe that it is possible that a handful of the other main characters can be reliably sourced and also pass general notability guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article. As the article stands right now (50 words), it serves no purpose. There's no more information that isn't already in the main article. Unless someone is going to expand with in-depth character/plot summary, casting, production, and reception information, it should be redirected. Using those Rome character articles isn't really a good example, given that Atia of the Julii article is all plot and is tagged with every clean-up tag imaginable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of a character article created within months of the series premier, it is a perfect example. As a good article...it is a terrible example. But I am not saying the Atia article is good. And yes, I will be expanding this article but will wait to see what happens with the deletion discussion. Thanks for contributing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mark Miller and Drmargi on this - this and several of the other main characters are notable enough for more in-depth pieces than the main article can support - common practice throughout the encyclopedia. This is a classic stub - I don't know if there was a reason for not having the stub tag, but I would recommend adding it, as well as creating articles/stubs for other main characters. Articles like this always start small, and they expand into fuller pieces as we go. Pointless to delete it only to recreate it a little later - give it some time. Tvoz/talk 23:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really common practice. Non-notable fictional characters which solely consist of plot are routinely deleted. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, as it has been said, this is not a "Non notable" character. Whatever you definition of notable may be at least this character passes criteria set by Wikipedia. Jeff Daniels just won an Emmy tonight for his portrayal of 'Will" McAvoy. This character's love interest. I actually see notability of this character and others rising even more than they already are.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Daniels winning an Emmy for playing a character may be indicative of notability for that character, but not for that character's unrelated love interest. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:49, 24 September 2013 (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.