Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey Pickett


 * 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) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Bailey Pickett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fancruft.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The character is a major character in a televison series that spanned 71 episodes and 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. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 15:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep if at all possible. 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). (Additional note: I will be pasting this message to other discussions opened on TSL/OD characters, and I'll mean it on every one.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Major Character with a lot of following and coverage on all media. Passes WP:GNG. --Nlfestival (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is this "coverage" and how does it pass GNG if there are no sources?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources don't have to be in the article for the subject to meet GNG. Subjects should actually meet GNG before the article is even created. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So where are the sources?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 11:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 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) 00:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck or create new list for main cast. Alleged notability and sources seem greatly exaggerated. I see no evidence of notability or coverage for any of these characters, and they all seem to fail the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 reflect WP:NTEMP. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NTEMP applies to something that was notable in the first place. This fancrufty plot recap doesn't establish notability at all. If there are sources, find them.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 11:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are lots of articles on Wikipedia about notable subjects that don't establish notability. WP:NRV actually says "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.". As I've already noted, because it's something that comes up in AfDs often, AfD is not for cleanup. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Other crap exists. This is the type of article that needs sources to establish notability, since it's been proven time and time again that fictional characters merely appearing in a notable work of fiction is not enough to establish notability.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 12:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a case where notability could have and should have been established while the series was airing but now, 17 months after the series has ended, the online sources establishing notability have understandably gone dead. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't believe there were a large number of sources discussing this character that have all been deleted in the past 17 months. Many entertainment news sources keep their archives online for several years: AV Club and Digital Spy archives go back 10 years, TMZ goes back at least to 2007, LA Times to the 1980s, Television Without Pity to early 2000s, many newspapers to 2000 or earlier, etc. Google Books goes back considerably further. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, though, it's quite possible sources could have existed then that don't exist now. Dylan and Cole Sprouse, which is a WP:GA, has 20 percent of its sources archived, and most of those now-dead links are from the years the series aired (and sometimes about the series). - Purplewowies (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per my comments here..--Stemoc (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per AussieLegend - The character is notable, AFD'ing a page per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is bad faith! ..... →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep We will have this sort of a problem with internet based sources, and the only partial solution is to archive while we can, to the extent permitted. Meanwhile, I;'d extend the benefit of the doubt.  DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 8 November 2013 (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.