Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supervisor Patrick O'Boyle

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 to Sam McMurray. Consensus is clear that the character is not notable itself. Normally, this would redirect to a "list-of characters" article, or section of an article about the show itself. Oddly, the consensus (even considering WP:SOCK), consensus is to redirect to the actor's article - I would assume that's because the character section for the show is poorly-developed at this time the panda ₯’ 10:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supervisor Patrick O'Boyle[edit]

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

Non-notable character from a sitcom. References are all primary sources to the TV series itself. Google does not show any obvious signs of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The TV series The King of Queens have articles for Dough, Carrie, and most notable characters. Giving the fact that this is one of the most known characters from the show, and that other characters from the show had articles, I naturally assumed it would be notable enough or worthy of an article. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, since the character had an IMDB page, I naturally assumed it was notable enough. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/ redirect to Sam McMurray? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I would see that as quite a waste of all my work, but rather that than delete. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. It's hard enough to get people to comment on my AfDs, and now all I get are sockpuppets? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "sock puppet"? Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since people obviously don't really care enough to share their vies on the matter, I'd say just re-direct it to Sam McMurray. Rather that then delete. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A sock puppet is a second account that is used abusively. If I created several additional accounts under different names, tried to hide the fact that I created them, and then used them to give the fake impression of consensus (or avoid sanctions), that would unambiguously be sock puppetry. However, it's perfectly legitimate to have secondary accounts, as long as you properly disclose them and do not abusively edit with them. For example, many administrators maintain a second user account to use when they are on insecure networks. Redirection is fine with me. Maybe we'll get more input soon. If there's a character list for King of Queens, that would be a perfectly legit target, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2014 (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.