Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Moseby

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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Moseby

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

Non-notable fancruft. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Trescott (Personal attack removed) has nommed all the major characters of a hit DISNEY show.--Stemoc (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from personal attacks. Comment on the nomination, not the nominator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The character is a major character in two televison series that spanned 158 episodes and a TV movie, as well as having appeeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. The character is clearly notable, the article just lacks some appropriate referencing but AfD is not for cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For fictional characters, appearing in something notable is not enough. They must have sources to establish their notability outside of the media they are from. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the characters that make the program notable. Take the character away and you have a program that wouldn't even get to pilot stage. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not a fan of people who nom things without thinking it through.....Trescott, take this to RfC. What you have chosen to do will affect 1000's of wikipedia articles. You cannot just nom character pages for deletion willy nilly..This needs discussion and I honestly do not see how Fancruft is a valid reason here....and this applies to ALL the pages you nommed in relation to character pages.--Stemoc (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My simplest reaction to all articles involved in this multi-page discussion is "keep if at all possible." But for Moseby specifically, I feel as if perhaps he is notable outside the series (I have not looked yet and may not have the time to do so, but I'm fairly sure he's been notable.) However, if keeping the article and attempting to rescue it are not feasible, merge to a "list of" article (and do better than my botched stupidhead attempt at it). - Purplewowies (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or create new list for main cast. Like the rest, this character fails the WP:GNG, as he does not seem to have significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The keep votes seem to be nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While sources are lacking now, this is because both series have ended and the sources are now dead. At the time the series' were in production, there were plenty available. The keep votes are not cases of WP:ILIKEIT, they reflect WP:NTEMP. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate those sources then. It's a relatively new series so you should be able to find at least citations to them on the Internet. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It" is not a relatively new series. There are two different series. The Suite Life of Zack & Cody ended over five years ago and The Suite Life on Deck ended more than two years ago. The nature of websites these days is that links seem to be going dead more quickly than they did a few days ago, so it's very difficult to find online sources for programs that have ended, especially when they're programs aged at young viewers, and consequently don't have as large an ongoing appeal. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Trescott also nommed the MAJOR characters of the show including Zack Martin and Cody Martin makes this nomination "moot" so no, i agree with Aussie, these are major characters and the fact that even Mr. Moseby is part of not one but 2 television series. Trescott is probably getting personal here and it would be best to speedy close this as neither of these 6 characters are "recurring", they are ALL the MAIN CAST in The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. They appeared/credited in in ALL 87 episodes

- Zack Martin
- Cody Martin
- Mr. Moseby
- London Tipton
- Maddie Fitzpatrick (full cast member on The Suite Life of Zack and Cody/recurring on The Suite Life on Deck)
- Carey Martin (full cast member of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody/recurring on on The Suite Life on Deck)
- Bailey Pickett (full cast member on The Suite Life on Deck)

It would be insane to delete legitimate characters of a HIT TV show, The Suite Life of Zack and Cody was Nominated for 3 Primetime Emmys and won another 9 awards & were nominated 18 times. The Suite Life on Deck won 5 awards and were nominated for 5 other awards. Are you really going to delete/merge the MAIN character pages for this show??--Stemoc (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new list of main characters. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, just bits and pieces, and this character (and show) has not received anything like the level of coverage given to characters from Star Trek, Friends, Buffy, Breaking Bad, etc, which legitimately have articles. Notability is not automatic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per AussieLegend - The character is notable, AFD'ing a page per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is bad faith! ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for all primary characters in important shows, based on the information we do have. Fancruft is term to apply only to attempts at adding extensive details about insignificant characters. Otherwise it does amount to IDONTLIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 8 November 2013 (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.