Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie's Angels 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 Keep all (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bosley (fictional detective)[edit]

Delete all - no independent reliable sources establish any notability for any of these fictional characters. Prods removed with no explanation. Otto4711 (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all. This is silly, and suggest withdrawing. The original Angels characters are classic archetypes, and have recieved widespread literary and scholarly review. In 15 minutes half-hearted effort on Google Scholar, I managed to find and add this to the Bosley article alone. Two minutes on Google Scholar or Google Books will show there's plenty of info out there; it just needs to be added, and if the nom had bothered to check, he would have realised this (although we all know it's far easier to destroy rather than create). AFD is not cleanup. Neıl ☄ 13:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions in various encyclopedias of television shows does not constitute significant coverage. For example, your first source, From Abba to Zoom, contains exactly five sentences about the character John Bosley in a 560 page book, and one of those sentences is factually incorrect (Bernie Mac didn't play this character but his step-brother). These so-called sources prove that the characters exist, not that they are notable. And Tiffany Welles and Julie Rogers are "classic archetypes"? Really? Otto4711 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The attention recieved by these characters, Bosley in particular (due to being played by multiple actors), is easily sufficient to prove notability. As for Tiffany Welles - 35 books, 25 news stories, 4 literary papers, 4310 web pages. Plus 3 more books with the simple misspelling of "Tiffany Wells". And she was the "least noted" Angel. 152 books, 647 news stories and 22 papers feature Bosley. Neıl ☄ 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Scholar results for Welles, we find that the typical coverage of the character runs along the lines of "So Kate left, replaced by Shelley Hack as 'Tiffany Welles,' one of my favorite angels." That's it. One sentence out of an entire paper. Another of them mentions Welles only in a photo caption. Of course there are going to be a lot of trivial mentions of these characters in various sources. Raw Google hits don't establish notability. What is required under WP:N is "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." And there is a footnote that further explains "significant coverage": "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian. ) is plainly trivial." The coverage of the individual Charlie's Angels characters is plainly trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've cherrypicked. Neıl ☄ 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're accusing me of here. Are you suggesting that I have some responsibility for checking 4,374 Ghits? I'm afraid not. You're the one claiming that the characters are independently notable; as Edison notes below, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that notability by pointing to the sources that you believe support it. I did the same Google searches you did and got the same results, checking a number of Ghits for each character and finding them all to be passing references before first prodding and then AFDing the articles. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about [1]? (search for "Boz", rather than "Bosley"). Neıl ☄ 09:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosley played by multiple actors? Have I missed something? I only remember 2 including Bill Murray. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Bosley, the subject of the article, was played by David Doyle on TV and Bill Murray in the first film. Bernie Mac played this character's step-brother, Jimmy Bosley, in the second film. A fact that the so-called reliable source gets wrong. Otto4711 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I was correct. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two actors is "multiple actors". Multiple means "more than one". Neıl ☄ 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean any offense. I normally read multiple as like 3, 4, 5, etc and took it that way, hence my question. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've fixed the listing so the AfD shows up on the list. For what it's worth I'm thinking that Bosley, Garrett, Duncan, and Munroe (Jill) will have been referenced in reliable 3rd party references as well as having been covered in movies about the T.V. show so am going with a Weak Keep. The others I'm not so sure of so won't comment either way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to keep any or all of these articles, instead of hand-waving and pointing to 4000 google hits, please identify, say, 3 references from reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of each of the AFD targets. It is unreasonable to expect each person coming to this AFD to do your research for you be searching several thousand claimed hits, many of which have trivial coverage or passing reference, or about a similarly named entity. That would prove notability for them, even if you did not immediately add the references to the articles. Edison (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2008
I've further expanded the Bosley article - see [2]. How is this now? I can do the same for the others, but not in the space of four days, I have a life. Neıl ☄ 09:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing but trivial mentions. Still no establishment of real-world notability. Otto4711 (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this trivial!? As you clearly are unwilling to listen, instead insisting the mentions are "trivial" despite them being provably not, there's clearly no point in trying to discuss this with you any further. Neıl ☄ 13:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted in the article, the role won Doyle two Emmys, which seems to denote notability. Plus, central characters in one of the most successful shows of the 1970's isn't notable? Please. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle did not win two Emmys and the article doesn't say he did. He was nominated for one Emmy and one Golden Globe. These nomination are certainly notable for Doyle but do not establish the notability of the character. The notability of the TV series is not inherited by the characters. Otto4711 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Iconic characters from an iconic TV series who have been mentioned in many magazine articles and books. If you're looking for scholarly references, you'll have to remove all but about 5 TV shows and character articles on Wikipedia. It could be argued that some of the later Angels might not be as notable as the others, but as the nom has chosen to do a blanket nomination, then I have to go with a blanket keep. 23skidoo (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake, did I say there had to be "scholarly references"? No. I said there need to be reliable sources. The definition of "reliable source is reproduced elsewhere in this nomination; I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. In addition, you are in no way required to make a blanket keep because the nomination is blanket. If you believe that one or more of the articles should be deleted, say so and don't pretend like the fact they're listed together means they are all required to have the same outcome. Otto4711 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also note the excellent work User:Abrazame has done with Kelly Garrett (eg [3]). Neıl ☄ 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "excellent work" are you referring to? How he's sourced the entire article to primary sources and completely and utterly failed to include a single word that establishes real-world notability, thus failing to address the substance of the nomination in any way? Yeah, that's some outstanding work there... Otto4711 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All ample sources are available to establish the real-world notability of these characters from one of the era's most successful television programs. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And could you name a few of these "ample sources" that discuss these characters in a non-trivial fashion? Pretty please with sugar on top? It's very easy to say that there are sources but in saying there are sources it's generally considered a good idea to provide them. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as recognizable, because of rescue efforts, and due to inherited notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Otto4711 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you do realize that you linked to an old edit of an AFD that resulted in deletion on the basis of notability not being inherited, right? Was this an obtuse error on your part or were you deliberately trying to be misleading? Otto4711 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to show that this whole "notability is not inherited" nonsense does not enjoy universal community support. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, it goes to show that consensus that notability is not inherited is broad and pervasive. Wikipedia does not operate on the principle of universal agreement. It operates on the principle of consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there is no consensus that notability is not inherited and nor is there any to delete these articles, which meet the general notability guideline without any reasonable doubt. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, there is consensus that notability is not inherited. If there were no such consensus, then articles could not be deleted using the argument. And if these articles meet WP:N "without any reasonable doubt" then finding the multiple reliable sources that cover the characters in a substantive manner should be a snap. Otto4711 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see anything even remotely convinicng that there is any such consensus or that that argument is even valid. Articles are deleted for all kinds of illogical reasons. And this article does meet notability, which is why others above have pointed out all sorts of sources and which is why both the arguments are numbers are stronger for keeping these article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that if God himself told you that notability was not inherited, or addressed any of the other many, many fundamental misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies and guidelines you cling to so vociferously, that it would make one whit of difference. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an atheist (I've seen and experienced too many horrible things to believe that any God could possibly have ever cared about me). If I'm the misguided one, then why are more editors arguing to keep here? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you're not the only editor who doesn't understand that trivial mentions in a variety of sources doesn't equal notability. It's a cross that those of us who understand Wiki-policy and guidelines struggle to bear. Otto4711 (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or it's the other way around as neither I nor the others think these mentions are trivial. I see no benefit to Wikipedia in not covering verifiable information that obviously interests editors and readers. If you or anyone does not like these articles, then you neither need worry about them or working on them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC) to[reply]
Delete all This is certainly a reliable source (assuming it is a true copy) and its coverage of the show and the actors is non-trivial. It does not, however, cover the characters in significant detail (with the possible exception of Jill Munroe). The rest of the coverage is focused on the actors or the show as well. Even if, (in the case of Bosley), an actor won an emmy for the portrayal of a character, that does not somehow make the character notable. It makes the actor notable, it he otherwise isn't, per WP:BIO, but that notability is not inherited by the character. Even one of the most iconic characters in american cinema is a redirect to citizen kane. As for the thousands of hits on google search, that number is huge. The general notability guideline provides some guidance on how to treat these articles and they don't meet it. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Hey, c'mon, we're talking about one of the most notable TV shows of the 1970s! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no we're not. The article for the TV show is not under consideration here. Your comment illustrates the error that many other editors are making in considering this nomination. They are conflating the notability of the show with the notability of the individual characters. The show is clearly notable and there is an abundance of sources to illustarte that. Where are the sources that illustrate the notability of the individual characters? Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a case for merge--these are major characters in continuing series. Inherited notability has nothing to do with it--the notability of a major character is intrinsic and part of the notability of the work if the work is notable enough. Works are composed of plots and characters, and all we need to write individual articles in enough verifiable material. The standard of notability here is the notability of the character within the series, and the notability of the series in the first place. (I use notability in both a common sense and a technical meaning (the suitability for articles in Wikipedia.) We first decide what we want to have, and then word out guidelines so they reflect it. We can have whatever guidelines we need to make a good encyclopedia. This is an exceptional nomination--never before have such major characters in a major continuing fiction been challenged--these are not barely-seen characters in one episode, or people in background roles, but the central characters of the series. It's also an exceptional nomination because of the quality of the articles--these are not the usual overblown repetitious material in some many poorly executed articles. Such a nomination shows a determination to sharply reduce the encyclopedia's coverage of contemporary culture, and is about the worst possible direction to go in terms of relevance to the real world. DGG (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well hey, thanks for your usual assumption of good faith there DGG. I appreciate your declaring that my motives in nominating these articles must be sinister. It couldn't possibly be that I sincerely believe that the individual characters are not in themselves notable and that the lack of substantive sources backs me up on it, could it? Otto4711 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to give a fair description. You think the principal characters of major fictions not notable and consequently not appropriate for articles. You do not accept them as breakout articles (if you did, you wouldn't be trying to delete them). Since you proposed a delete not a merge, you don't think the material should be moved elsewhere, (thus losing the detailed material). Since you proposed a delete not a redirect, you think there also should not even be redirects from the character names. The consequence of what you are proposing is that the coverage of fiction will be substantially reduced. We're not forced to do it by general WP:N, for we can adopt whatever sort of N as a fiction guideline we choose. You apparently have your preference for what guideline to use, and are determined to reduce the coverage to match. Fair description, I call it. If I said you were nominating these recklessly without the awareness of what it meant, then I wouldn't be assuming good faith & you'd have a justified complaint But I do, I think you in good faith are doing what will give the obvious results. I give you full credit for knowing the consequences of your repeated deletion proposals. Until now, it was possible to think you just wanted to trim the coverage a little--a reasonable proposal, though we would disagree on the extent to which it should be done. But when it becomes characters of central importance to historic shows, it's what I hope is outside of what the consensus will consider reasonable. DGG (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neil and DGG. —Giggy 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If John Bosley is notable enough for his own entry in "A Pop Culture Encyclopedia Of The Late 20th Century", he's notable enough for Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one just seems obvious to me. Unschool (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is room for improvement on these articles, but again, these are significant cultural characters. As these were popular 30 years ago, it is hard to find contemporary references, but I, for one, will work on it. Cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neil, DGG and Cbradshaw. Banjeboi 21:40, 11 August 2008 (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.