Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This character only appeared in two-episodes, and shows no signs of ever appearing in the show again. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Character is important within the shows history, and just as important as any other companion. magnius (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The character left after two episodes and left seemingly no legacy. He wasn't that important in the show's history considering that, and when this article was nominated before, it was agreed to MERGED into another article, I only renominated it to reevaluate it due to WP's rules possibly changing. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's enough real-world information. DonQuixote (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters—seriously, guys, he was in two episodes, and relatively minorly in each. Having an article for such a non-character is really opening the floodgates in an un-necessary way. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster  ─╢ 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Many characters (and not just in DW) were only in two parters, some less than that, but they still warrant an article to themselves. Basing your opinion on how many episodes a character in isn't the consideration, it's how important the subject surely? magnius (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as my use of the words "relatively minorly in each" clearly indicated, I do not feel the subject is important at all. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  quaestor  ─╢ 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I could warrant an article with a bit more scrounging about for sources. If this is the best there is for this character though, I think we should merge per TreasuryTag.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 10:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per TreasuryTag. No real lasting legacy, and much of the text is unsourced, so a merge feels like the right approach here. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: A previous AfD for this article was closed as Merge, but it seems this never happened. Does anyone know why not? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment At the time I believe they couldn't find a target to merge it too. Since so much time had passed and one person claimed on the Talk Page that it now passed WP:FICT. As such, I decided to renominate it to see if opinions had really changed. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think an encylopedia should only have entries about fictional characters when they are significantly noteworthy outside of just fandom - so The Doctor would be okay, but I don't consider a single other character in Doctor Who notable enough to warrant a page. That's my opinion, which is probably not popular among DW fans, but my vote here is definitely delete since this is a particularly minor character that appeared in DW several years ago.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But notability is not temporary... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 07:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per TT and previous AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge seems like a fair compromise. Support for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.