Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Mosby

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 Valley2city^‽ 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Mosby

Articles about fictional characters with little discernible notability and no usable sources. I myself am a fan of the show, but I don't let that get in the way of seeing that as they stand, the articles are not notable. The articles are certainly well-made, but without notability, that doesn't matter. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this fictional character is notable. Several independent sources in my google search. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share those? I did a google news search among others and couldn't find anything sufficient. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added three more character pages that I meant to add initially, but I forgot to click "save page". Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Being the main character in a major TV series sounds notable to me.SPNic (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. All are notable, they are the main characters on a CBS show with 4 seasons and still running.Theeagleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That comment outlines your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's
notability is not inherited. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

If the nominator is going to insult anybody who disagrees with him, it's safe to assume bad faith.SPNic (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was that an insult? His vote does not address any of the issues with the article. The only argument given so far is that "since the show is successful, the characters must be notable," even though that is a direct violation of

WP:NOTINHERITED. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Refering to a voter's "lack of knowledge" was, to put it mildly, less than tactful. The general consensus is that the main character on a notable TV show is notable.SPNic (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me to where that has been established? Because that seems to go against not only

bad faith when you accused me of having poor intentions. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep comments in original discussion accurately reflect consensus interpretation of GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? GNG is clear that a subject has to have substantial coverage in order to be considered notable, and I can't find anything to suggest that such sources exist for these characters. There is a reason that I did not nominate

WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual policy or guidelines. Plus, the actual content of the articles themselves are purely in-universe character biographies that are better suited for a fansite. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Central characters in a very important fiction should have articles, but I am not sure whether or not this fiction is sufficiently important. If judged not important enough to justify the character articles, then merge. . The only question for There is no consensus at all that the GNG is relevant to such articles--if there were any such consensus, we would be having these hundreds of debates here and failure to agree of guidelines at every possibly related place. IUn any case, even if one is in the group that thinks the GNG applies, the conclusion would be to merge. Subnotable subjects make suitable candidates for sections in a combination article. There is no policy or guideline that the subjects of such sections have to be notable--indeed, if they were, they;d have sepoarate articles. There just needs to be sources, and the work itself is a source for this. Is there any reason the nominator thinks the merge inappropriate? DGG (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would fully support a merge. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 02:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although don't expect me to explain my reasons. since xfd's are little more than votes, per
WP:NOTVOTE, there's really no point, anyway - they'd be ignored in favor of popular opinion, anyway. Rwiggum - i advise you to do the same. the closing admin will ignore your attempts to further clarify your position so its pointless to try. Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into a list When, according to notability guidelines, a character is insufficiently notable to be covered in his/her own article, covering the group in context of the show is a viable solution. Not being independently notable is not the same as not suitable for inclusion altogether. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all -- we have articles on major characters of other major shows. This is not like some bit part, these are all multi-season every episode starring roles. I normally support deletion of most things up for AFD, but this is a ridiculous nomination. DreamGuy (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2009
Keep Every other major show has character pages, what makes this one different. I'm okay with the episode pages getting deleted, but this is absurd.Tej68 ([[User talk:
If we are looking for sources, interviews with the actors can be used, here's one for Robin[1], another for Robin [2], one for ted [3], another for ted[4]. One for marshall [5]I'm sure their are more, all of these touch on the characters and info can be pulled out to put into the articles.
talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all per above. –- kungming·2 05:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Tej68. The consensus that episode articles should generally be deleted has nothing to do with the idea of central characters' articles being deleted. This is a notable show, and its main characters are thus notable enough to have their own article. If you think that central characters' articles should, in general, be deleted, then take that cause up elsewhere, but until it's the Wikipedia norm, this articles should stay. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:25, 23 April 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.