Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mad Men characters

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 redirect. east.718 at 03:54, 11/13/2007

[edit] Don Draper and Roger Sterling

Don Draper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Roger Sterling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:NOTE. Both contested {{prod}}s. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Articles are under development. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The above user is the author of the page, and if the pages are under development, they have stayed the same since the 20th of October. And did you take anything I said into consideration at all? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment You say that as if two weeks is a really long time. Does everyone have to work equally fast? —Quasirandom 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not a long time, but I just think the author might have added to them by now. Actually, he just did. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding WP:NOTE, these two characters meet the same standards as Tony Soprano, Peter Griffin, B. A. Baracus, and Daisy Duke.

— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• • The articles have no sources, have not received signifigant coverage, or are verifiable. All in WP:NOTE. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Both are sourced. The infobox list the character's first appearance. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Nothing is cited directly. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, check the examples I listed above. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
          • What I am saying is, no source is cited. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment With less effort that you spent marking these articles for deletion, you could have improved Wikipedia and added the citations you say you want. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But they do not comply with WP:NOTE. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In your opinion. If the exmples I cited above comply with Notability, and they do, then these two articles stubs do as well. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:FICT says "Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources". Has it? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, Mad Men is one of the most critically acclaimed new televison shows of 2007. If you read the main article about the show you would see that. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps that could be added. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • No one is stopping you. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • OK. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No attempt to show notability in either case. --DAJF 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable characters. Just because the show is notable doesn't mean the characters are. Notability isn't inherited. No sources showing notability, no assertion of real-world notability, nothing. Crazysuit 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So by this standard all stubs should be deleted? We are only going to accept full "complete" articles now on Wikipedia? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Where did he say that? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't, he's just trying a straw man. All articles, however small, must demonstrate notability. If they don't demonstrate notability, as in this case, they will be deleted. Crazysuit 06:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and then consider a redirect to Mad Men, the show on which these characters appear. There's nothing in these articles that suggests to me that these characters are notable enough to warrant articles of their own, separate from the series, under WP:FICT. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the main article. The two pages aren't notable enough on their own.Alberon 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect both - why is this even a question? The independent reliable sources to establish the independent notability of the two characters do not exist, the article Mad Men is not such that an encyclopedic treatment of the topic requires that the character information be split off. Otto4711 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2007 (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.