Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Moseby (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 keep. BD2412 T 00:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Moseby[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed ~~Wikipedia:Notability (biographies)~~Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The keep from 2013 was because of the two votes, one stating that 'a character that appeared in 83 episodes is notable', 'keep per' and oh, a clear personal attack on the nom... Sigh. I think our standards are a bit higher now. (Oh, this is also totally unreferenced (outside one footnote to a single episode of the show)... and pure WP:OR/WP:PLOT). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This nomination is so erroneous, citing Wikipedia:Notability (biographies), which applies only to actual living people, on a page whose subject is a fictional character, giving rise to serious question as to whether the nominator has read ad understood the article and guideline in question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I copypasted the wrong guideline link. Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The nom has misrepresented the first nomination. Six editors voted with four voting to keep. Nowhere was it stated 'a character that appeared in 83 episodes is notable'. In fact the character is a major character in two television series that spanned 158 episodes and a TV movie, as well as having appeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. Neither series had 83 episodes so I'm not sure where that figure was plucked from. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that there was some copypaste error and my explanation of the problems here was replaced with the one from another AfD. Still, the basics hold, this fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree as the sources found by Rhino131 demonstrate notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Mistaken guideline aside, the nomination is correct that this currently fails to establish independent notability through real world information-providing reliable sources. The keep !votes in the previous AfD did rely on all "it's notable" claims without any backing, so sources should be provided if those claims are to be made again. The number of appearances are completely irrelevant to establishing notability. TTN (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- I have found two sources which discuss the character in some detail, “Cowboy Up!”: Non-Hegemonic Representations of Masculinity in Children’s Television Programming, and Conceptualizing Perspective in Rural America: An analysis of individual assumptions and responses influenced by televised programming (Pages 175-180). The first may have access issues for some but it includes analysis of the character in terms of the portrayal of masculinity in children's television. The second appears to be an undergraduate research paper, however it was presented at an official conference for undergraduate research at Purdue University. These may not be enough to demonstrate notability on their own, but there may be more sources out there. I think there is a decent case for notability here. Rhino131 (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / redirect - after a review of the sources. There are some questoins of whether Mr. Moseby is a racial stereotype, but nothing enough to establish the WP:NOTABILITY of the character, and really more about racial representation in children's programming as a whole. In the sources he's cited as a brief example in a much wider conversation about representation, when we really need more WP:SIGCOV to explain this character's real world reception overall. Jontesta (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed on 25 August by User:Awesome Aasim, a non-administrator, as keep. Pursuant to WP:DPR#NAC, I, an uninvolved administrator, have vacated this closure and determine that the debate be relisted for a further one week from today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll ping editors who took their time to comment at the DELREV and did not comment here yet: @Devonian Wombat, Reyk, Bearian, TTN, Hobit, and Lightburst:. Also, in case Hobit does not comment here, I will mention that they did link a new source: [1] but the one page I see seems to be a pure plot/apperance description of the character. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody#Cast and characters, this character does not pass WP:GNG, there is only one source, which is a primary source and so does not contribute to notability anyway. The sources brought are shown by the analysis of Jontesta to not be enough to cause a GNG pass. Article also currently fails WP:PLOT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other main characters and List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, and rename List of the Suite Life characters per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Martin (Suite Life). Corachow (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The source I found (linked above) is more than plot--it is very much analysis of the character and his interaction with others. In particular a discussion about sexuality and behavior. Reading the whole thing is actually fairly interesting. That said, the source is short (the entire discussion about this character is a bit less than a page spread over a few pages). But with everything else, I feel like we are over the bar. I am shocked that there isn't as much in the popular press here as I'd have expected. Hobit (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There actually was a lot more for all of the main characters while the program was actually airing. I don't know if it's a thing just with Disney programs or whether it occurs with all kids' TV programs but almost as soon as the program ended, sources started disappearing. Admittedly, a lot of the websites did start reorganising their content but it's almost as if they said "Well, that program has finished, we don't need this stuff any more" and dumped everything. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable character who was a cornerstone of a highly notable 2000s Disney Channel Sitcom. Sources have become dead links over time. However, the character lives on in memes and nostalgia; and its clear that it had made Phill Lewis's career appearing in dozens of episodes with this unique character. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite any sources to show that "the character lives on in memes and nostalgia"? Because if all the sources saying that are now "dead", well, than it means the character no longer lives on. And while notability is not temporary, we need to be able to verify those old sources, otherwise it is just a claim that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Or THEWERESOURCESBUTNOWTHEYAREGONE. C'mon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 31 August 2020 (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.