Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Martinez

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. If a merge is still desired, it can be discussed outside AFD. Otherwise, no other arguments for deletion and strong arguments for retention prevail. MuZemike 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Martinez

Oscar Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claims of notability. No real world information. Everything is original research. Its pretty much just a page listing every time he makes an appearance on the show. Coasttocoast (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Thryduulf say that? That editor made no comments in this article nomination. Dream Focus 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character in a series watched by millions. If an entire episode was made about him, he must be fairly important, or important enough anyway. Dream Focus 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep AfD is not for cleanup. The subject is clearly one of several noteworthy characters in a television series with an ensemble cast. Other than "no claims of notability," the nominator's points are all reasons to add a cleanup tag, or even perform a cleanup themselves. As for the notability issue, the nominator did not back that up statement one bit, so it's kind of hard to argue against. Suffice to say, this is just one of many articles that don't necessarily fit the criteria cited by DustFormsWords, and this AfD is not the place to solve the problem if you want to wipe them all out. A centralized discussion would be more appropriate, so the issue can be discussed en masse – i.e. not just about Oscar. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Willoughby, DreamFocus and Benjiboi - The question is not whether Oscar has notability; he does, and there is no reason why information about him can't appear on pages related to The Office. The question is whether he has independent notability - that is, is he notable independently of the series he appears in? The answer to that must be "no" (there's no evidence for it in the article) and as such it's not appropriate for him to have a stand-alone article. (And specifically to User:A Stop at Willoughby - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the existence of other articles that violate policy isn't a keep argument in relation to this one.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DustFormsWords: I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not citing those articles as an argument to keep just this article. What I'm saying is that this is the wrong venue to pursue deletion in...there is an entire class of articles that exists which ought to be either all kept and all deleted, and it would be much, much more logical to discuss those options in a centralized location rather than one article by one at AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Willoughby - That discussion is already happening at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and the consensus so far is that (as per a common sense reading of WP:N) characters need to have independent notability to have their own page. It's not that there's a vacuum of policy on this that needs to be cleared up; it's that a policy exists, and it should be being enforced until such time, if ever, as there is a change in that policy. AfD isn't going to go on hold until that time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are correct; my apologies, I didn't realize there was already an ongoing discussion. Nevertheless, I don't think a full consensus has been reached there and I still strongly support keeping the article at hand. 71.255.86.139 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC) (wasn't logged in...) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Most recent reply. Your argument doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the same argument could be made of all entries on characters on the show. Even the main characters do not have independent notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.143.76 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Reply to unisgned comment - that may well be true; go bring 'em all to AfD. Although if I remember correctly Steve Carrell has won some awards for his portrayal of Michael so you could make an argument on that basis. An example of independent notability would be Bart Simpson; people who've never watched The Simpsons may still know who he is because of his level of cultural saturation. Or Kramer from Seinfeld. These are characters that are referenced and satirised well outside their home show; they're a shared part of our cultural consciousness. They have independent notability and it can be established by quoting a large number of sources that talk about and analyse these characters in some detail with only passing mention - or no mention at all - of their origin shows. That's a standard possibly none of the characters from The Office reach (yet) and it's certainly not one that Oscar Martinez can claim. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using this, or any article as a test case as part of ongoing fictional notability battles seems like a really bad idea and unlikely to help Wikipedia in the long run. At best you'd have a very large list article until each character was again re-spun off into its own article. As we are not a paper encyclopedia it seems to make sense, at least in this case, to let the article develop in peace since multiple independent reliable sources do seem to support a good article can be created. -- Banjeboi 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment - nice work, Benjiboi. If someone were to work those sources into the article in the form of a "Oscar Martinez is independently notable because...", I'd be prepared to reconsider my vote. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that however with AfD we don't insist that the article itself be fixed to address the deletion concerns - although that would be nice. What we do instead is address if the issues are fixable. If it can be demonstrated that the issues raised can be addressed, in this case that notability can be shown, then it's simply a matter for the article to be improved, not that it has to be improved over the next few days or we'll still delete it. -- Banjeboi 21:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested deletion (apart from the nominator), just that with only notability dependant on the series, this character is best covered in the character list article. Even if all the sources above were used, this character can easily be covered in a few paragraphs in the list. I do agree that this was not the best venue, as a discussion of all the character articles needs to be had. But this is not a case of "waiting for the articles to develop", this will just keep getting longer with far too much fan detail and no sourced discussion - in such cases, merging to a list and waiting for it to grow there helps the article. The articles as they now stand are more appropriate for a fiction wikia.YobMod 10:34, 28 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oscar_Martinez&oldid=1138190590"