Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitch (character)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch (character)[edit]

Unnotable character from the television miniseries Tin Man (TV miniseries). Has no significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and is nothing but a repeat of the plot of the series. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and goes against both the TV and Film MoSs and the current and old versions of WP:FICT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gotta agree with the nom on this one. 100% plot summary, and just a character-specific rehash of the summary that's already present in the main article, which already needs trimming. Hence nothing worth saving or merging, and the disambiguator makes even the title an unlikely search term, so delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rebuild as a dab page, there are several characters named "Glitch" in several pieces of fiction, this one doesn't seem to have priority. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think Glitch (disambiguation) suffices as a dab page. If there are indeed several characters named Glitch, we need merely create an "In fiction" section within that dab page. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the nominator's solid argument. I do not see this character article ever possessing primarily real-world context with plot detail only complementing as necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably sourced content to Tin Man (TV miniseries) due to inane attempt at article rescue which completely misrepresents the content to indicate that the fictional character is notable enough to warrant a separate article. —Erik (talk • contrib)

Merge to List of characters in Tin Man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM not being valid reasons for deletion, especially when we can merge or even improve the article using reviews. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here has said simply "per nom" or "just not notable". We've all given reasons why we agree with the nominator's assessement as well as reasons why we feel the article fails the notability criteria. I'm not seeing any empty arguments here; every !vote has been well-explained. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't seem to back up the reality of sources available from Google News, i.e. the character is discussed out if universe in multiple reliable sources so the claims that it fails Notability is not accurate (it has out of universe coverage in multiple secondary sources, which means it can meet Plot by adding reception information as well as Fict by having coverage in multiple secondary sources, which I will begin to add in short order). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you mind tossing up a link to what GN hits you've gotten, as you did in the DG example? I'd like to look over the hits. Don't have much time to now - gotta get back to work - but will gladly look at them later. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure, check through the 65 results here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So far you've only added one single line. The first ref is unnecessary. A reference isn't needed to say the character is in the film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a start and Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. If it I didn't have to go back and forth here as well, I would be able to focus more on the articles. Simultaneously looking through sources, commenting in discussions, eating cookies, checking email, writing articles, etc. means I need more time! :) Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in Tin Man as is standard in these cases. Character has some degree of notability, and combined they certainly do. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list article is also up for deletion, so perhaps that ought to be settled first before we consider merging anything into it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I've suggested that that AfD be put on hold until this gets settled out. Seems a lot cleaner. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to List of characters in Tin Man or Tin Man (TV miniseries). This miniseries was substantially reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and many national magazines, so there is clearly plenty of independent reliable source material to say something independently verifiable about this major character. Whether it should be said in a separate article or in the list of characters or main article is a question to be determined on the articles' talk pages, not at AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This i sone of the main supporting characters in the series and media folks LOVE to talk about TV characters and the acting challenges. Granted much of that be somewhat superficial but the net result is dozens of interviews, which, when added to DVD commentary, reviews and criticisms of the series involving this character, etc means plenty f sourcing is available. pushing all characters into a series article can sometimes be helpful but often it makes that article worse and the result is a loss for those who look to wikipedia for credible and neutral reporting. -- Banjeboi 09:26, 26 January 2009 (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.