Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony DiNozzo


 * 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 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anthony DiNozzo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom, contested merge to List of NCIS characters with an incorrect claim that the merge was not discussed. Article was tagged for over 1 month. Per WP:FICT, "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible".

Despite being a major character in a notable series, notability is not inherited by the characters. This article does not establish real world notability of the character independent of its series. No reliable third party sources and just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research.

See Articles for deletion/Caitlin Todd and Articles for deletion/Jenny Shepard for precedent. McWomble (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close nomination. It might have been tagged, but I can not find any evidence if said merge suggestion was actually discussed. And AFD is not the place to do it. Please go to Requested mergers instead. It's bad form to delete a an article that has a contested merge altogether.- Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It was discussed at Talk:List of NCIS characters. McWomble (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep/close and trout the nom for disrupting wikipedia to make a point. If people are objecting to the merge, then the merge discussion needs to be re-opened. Stop trying to force things. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding of what has been contested. Looking at the page history, it seems Anthony DiNozzo was redirected to List of NCIS characters after a month of discussion but this redirect was reverted, indeed with an incorrect claim that there was no discussion (which obviously isn't true). Since the article is indeed made up entirely of plot summary and original research, this AfD should be allowed to run. And I say delete as there si no content worth merging that isn't already in List of NCIS characters. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete because I am sick of seeing the same bits of plot and OR added back to any character articles after it has been removed, just becuse some fan thinks its useful! 203.30.75.12 (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the merge already occured, we need to retain the redirect/page history for this page for proper attribution per GFDL. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, no merge occurred, so GFDL isn't an issue.. – sgeureka t•c 10:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to allow interested editors to cull the page history and to keep it around as a legitimate search term, otherwise weak delete per nom. It's always unfortunate when AfD has to be employed for objective outsider opinion in cases where a merger/redirect is the best action as long as no-one establishes notability. – sgeureka t•c 10:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close nomination. Single-paragraph descriptions in a merged document do not adequately educate someone searching on the backstory relationships between the characters, especially as the show is into its 6th season.  The character page is long because it shares a timeline of relationships and character growth, not simply a rehashing of the plot.  19:09, 4 December 2008
 * Comment. The backstory and relationships are entirely in-universe, primary sourced or original research. Real world notability of the character has not been established by reliable secondary sources. McWomble (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2008 (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.