Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Martin
- 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Zack Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Disney fancruft. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - The character is a primary character in two televison series that spanned 158 episodes and a TV movie, as well as having appeeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. The character is clearly notable, the article just lacks some appropriate referencing but AfD is not for cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- For fictional characters, appearing in something notable is not enough. They must have sources to establish their notability outside of the media they are from. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's the characters that make the program notable. Take the character away and you have a program that wouldn't even get to pilot stage. In the case of this character, the series wouldn't even have a title, because this character is one of the title characters. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. Not clear indication of notability of character: although it's common to have articles on main characters from long-running shows, they're not automatically notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the merge destination you've suggested is quite right for Zack. However, if keeping the article and attempting to rescue it are not feasible, I do believe it's appropriate to merge to a "list of" article (and do better than my botched stupidhead attempt at it). - Purplewowies (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, the merge destination is definitely not appropriate. Zack Martin was a lead character in two series (Title character in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and lead character in The Suite Life on Deck), not simply a recurring character, --AussieLegend (✉) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the merge destination you've suggested is quite right for Zack. However, if keeping the article and attempting to rescue it are not feasible, I do believe it's appropriate to merge to a "list of" article (and do better than my botched stupidhead attempt at it). - Purplewowies (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- You might have to rename the target, but covering main and recurring characters in the same article is better than creating a separate article for main characters (unless the result would be unnecessarily long). Since ...On Deck was a spin-off/continuation of the original series, with many of the same characters, treating both together is justified (in contrast, something like Frasier which has an almost entirely different cast is better separate from Cheers). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The two series were different and have two sets of articles as a result. Both List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck exist. Combining them would result in an excessively long and confusing article. Several of the characters crossed between the two series but I wouldn't say "many". The Suite Life on Deck had its own characters and characters that crossed from The Suite Life of Zack & Cody to The Suite Life on Deck (none crossed the other way obviously) did so generally for only one, sometimes two, episodes. And, of course, who would merge them. It's a big job. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You might have to rename the target, but covering main and recurring characters in the same article is better than creating a separate article for main characters (unless the result would be unnecessarily long). Since ...On Deck was a spin-off/continuation of the original series, with many of the same characters, treating both together is justified (in contrast, something like Frasier which has an almost entirely different cast is better separate from Cheers). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or create new list for main cast. The character does not have significant coverage as required by the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- While sources are lacking now, this is because both series have ended and the sources are now dead. At the time the series' were in production, there were plenty available. The keep votes reflect WP:NTEMP. Deletion would require a new article, as the character was a main character in two series. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the criteria for notability. Someone has to write an article about the character. It doesn't matter if that article was written 50 years ago, 5 years ago, or a day ago. Examples of articles that would count as establishing notability would something like you see in Keyser Söze, Rorschach (comics), or Frasier Crane. Note how these character have a Reception section, where professional critics rank the character in "top ten" style lists, proclaim him to the best character ever, or otherwise give some kind of opinion. Note how Keyser Söze has an entire chapter in a book, a scholarly essay, and multiple articles in magazines dedicated to him. Rorschach changed how comic book characters are written. Frasier Crane, well, he was a pretty popular sitcom character. What has this character done to warrant coverage in Wikipedia? Where are the scholarly essays, the chapters in books, the magazine articles? Provide some. Then we'll keep the character. If you can't, then he's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:GNG requires that subjects have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I indicated, online sources existed while the series' were airing that clearly established notability. Unfortunately, more than to years after The Suite Life on Deck finished airing, these sources have disappeared as often happens. (Try finding sources for Frasier Crane these days) That doesn't mean the character is no longer notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, there are dozens of sources for Frasier Crane in the Frasier Crane article. Same thing for the others that I listed. You can use archive.org to access them if they are no longer working. This is no defense at all. I personally dug up dozens of references for Kesyer Soze, and he dates back to a 1995 film, before most of these actors were even born. I have personally added dozens of sources to fictional characters introduced in the 1970s. I don't see how you can possibly make this argument. It's stunningly easy to locate sources on the internet. Of course, if the character isn't notable, it becomes significantly more difficult... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Try looking online is what I was getting at. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Using archive.org requires that the refs be in the article to start with and these articles suffer from a distinct lack of sources, but that doesn't mean the character wasn't notable. This one was one of the two title characters for the series. Without them we'd have "The Suite Life of and". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)- I fully understand what you're getting at, and I categorically reject it. I'm repeating myself here: I personally added over two dozen sources to Keyser Söze, and that character is 18 years old – older than most internet sites. It was still trivially easy. The vast majority of sources in Frasier Crane were added by editors in 2012, long after the character's last appearance (almost ten years). If you're having this much trouble locating sources for this character, it's because he's not notable. Notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter if he was one of the title characters. I think I've said everything I have to say on this matter, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Notability is established through independent third-party reliable sources, and, if the character is notable, it doesn't matter how old it is. The sources will be easy to locate. If you can't find it on Google, then try a library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Try looking online is what I was getting at. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Uh, there are dozens of sources for Frasier Crane in the Frasier Crane article. Same thing for the others that I listed. You can use archive.org to access them if they are no longer working. This is no defense at all. I personally dug up dozens of references for Kesyer Soze, and he dates back to a 1995 film, before most of these actors were even born. I have personally added dozens of sources to fictional characters introduced in the 1970s. I don't see how you can possibly make this argument. It's stunningly easy to locate sources on the internet. Of course, if the character isn't notable, it becomes significantly more difficult... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:GNG requires that subjects have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I indicated, online sources existed while the series' were airing that clearly established notability. Unfortunately, more than to years after The Suite Life on Deck finished airing, these sources have disappeared as often happens. (Try finding sources for Frasier Crane these days) That doesn't mean the character is no longer notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the criteria for notability. Someone has to write an article about the character. It doesn't matter if that article was written 50 years ago, 5 years ago, or a day ago. Examples of articles that would count as establishing notability would something like you see in Keyser Söze, Rorschach (comics), or Frasier Crane. Note how these character have a Reception section, where professional critics rank the character in "top ten" style lists, proclaim him to the best character ever, or otherwise give some kind of opinion. Note how Keyser Söze has an entire chapter in a book, a scholarly essay, and multiple articles in magazines dedicated to him. Rorschach changed how comic book characters are written. Frasier Crane, well, he was a pretty popular sitcom character. What has this character done to warrant coverage in Wikipedia? Where are the scholarly essays, the chapters in books, the magazine articles? Provide some. Then we'll keep the character. If you can't, then he's not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- While sources are lacking now, this is because both series have ended and the sources are now dead. At the time the series' were in production, there were plenty available. The keep votes reflect WP:NTEMP. Deletion would require a new article, as the character was a main character in two series. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - per my comments here..--Stemoc (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per AussieLegend - The character is notable, AFD'ing a page per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is bad faith! ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Articles on primary characters in major shows are not fancruft-- a word which properly refers to extensive details about unimportant characters or unimportant plot elements. Of course, to those who think the entire underlying subject trivial, everything may appear as fancruft. I myself couldn't care less, but I don;t impose that on other people. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- 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.