Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Miner (The Office)


 * 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. Procedural close. It appears that these articles are sufficiently different that they should be discussed separately. I will close this, then re-open (procedurally, I have no opinion about the notability of the individual articles) an AfD on each. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Miner (The Office)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable minor character, appeared in few episodes. Article is retelling of those episodes in depth and presents no real world notability. Delete or redirect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bleh, you did a slew of these without differentiation. A multiple-nom would be much better.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you could do that, how is it done? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:BUNDLE. I've added all related articles below (none of their AfDs had !votes yet). – sgeureka t•c 15:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Template:Deletion sorting  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Also nominated for deletion are (see discussion above):
 * - Added on February 23, 2012 at 15:46 GMT
 * - Added on February 23, 2012 at 15:46 GMT
 * - Added on February 23, 2012 at 15:46 GMT
 * - Added on February 23, 2012 at 15:46 GMT
 * - Added on February 23, 2012 at 15:46 GMT

Moved from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kathy_Simms:
 * At least redirect Why is this a non-viable search term? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Searching Because someone might think, "Oh, I want to know about Deangelo Vickers", put it in the search box, and hit . Why shouldn't we make a redirect for those users? I just don't understand why we should disenfranchise them from having this redirect as a search term. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I thought we were talking about Kathy Simms. Who seems even less notable than Deangelo who appeared in 3 episodes. But whatever, a redirect is fine. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to a character list article or similar. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  19:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect all, and probably Nellie Bertram as well to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. If the roles of one or more of these characters are expanded in the future their articles can be recreated.Bjones (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well they'd still have to be notable first but agree with adding Nellie Bertram, would have added more if I'd known about mass deletion discussions Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment, I think this page has already been redirected. Does that mean the discussion's over? NetflixSoup (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, who has done that? Nothing should be done until the discussion is closed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I Oppose for Jo Bennet and Kathy Simms, I think that these characters are important enough to warrant their own.--Iankap99 (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in-universe importance or real-world WP:NOTABILITY? In-universe importance has no relevance in determining the suitability for stand-alone articles, whereas real-world notability needs to be demonstrated beyond WP:ARTICLESIZE issues (or the character can just as well be covered in a list). – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I Oppose for Kathy Simms, This character is being considered to be a reoccurring character, and part of the main cast.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.33.89 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Does this IP vote actually count? They've been removing deletion tags from the pages, demonstrate no reason for them to remain except that they may be in the main cast, which isn't a reason, and are clearly bias about the issue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect all There's no reason any of these characters need more than a paragraph of description, two paragraphs at most. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I Oppose for Kathy Simms, This character has proven to be notable as she reoccurs throughout the eighth season -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.44.70 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Appearances do not count as notability. Also this appears to either be the same individual as 173.59.33.89 or connected to them since they have the same location. Just in the interests of transparency. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect all, no indication of real-world notability. Miner and Bennet have more in-universe importance (having important roles in at least one season-long story arc) but still no real-world notability. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose all of these characters are significant and deserve their own pages, for is enough information for all of them, except Robert Lipton. His article should be deleted. He is a minor recurring character. But the rest of the pages should NOT be deleted.Caringtype1 (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because why? Why? Is it so hard to justify notability? They're not "significant" just because. Nor are they significant because enough of their actions have been recounted in excessive plot form. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

These characters are just as important as Creed or MeredithCaringtype1 (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I Oppose Deangelo Vickers and Nellie Bertram. While Charles Miner and Jo Bennet are notable characters, I admit there's not enough context in their pages for them to continue to own their own individual articles. And, while I think Kathy should have her own article, because she is becoming a recurring character, I understand if she must be merged for the time being, until there is enough real-word content about her that we can add to her page. But, I do not think Deangelo and Nellie should be merged, because not only are they notable, but I have provided enough real-world content to Vickers' article, and am currently doing the same for Bertram's. NetflixSoup (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I Oppose Deangelo Vickers and Nellie Bertram as well. They have a decent amount of non-trivial, third-world coverage in their articles. The others are just bloated plot summaries at this point.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose but relist. The nominator received bad advice at the top of this page - the articles all deserve their own consideration. Nothing in Kathy Simms shows that the article should be kept, but some of the characters do appear to have significant independent coverage and may be legitimate articles. This should be closed and the articles should be relisted for individual consideration, if appropriate. Pretty Green (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relist and discuss properly, character by character, Experience has shown it is usually not the case that all minor characters are equally minor. In any case, there is no actual reason for deletion, as every one of these, no matter how minor, can be redirected. All named characters in a major fiction are worth a redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral and oppose relisting The articles of Deangelo Vickers and Nellie Bertram have been greatly expanded with significant real-world information since the AfD nom, i.e. people are successfully working on this set of article. As I am not familiar with the show, I cannot tell whether this is also possible with the other characters. Looking back, I agree I should not have bundled the AfDs although it seemed sensible at the time. Forcing the same outcome on all articles is IMHO the wrong way now, so it's best to close this as no consensus and let editors discuss the future on these articles on the respective talk pages (a merger or redirect for some of them does not require an admin). – sgeureka t•c 08:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tthere are multiple explained votes to redirect, there are a multiple unjustified votes offering no explanation for keeping, the consensus would seem clear in this case. An admin is smart enough to not delete the ones genuinely opposed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose deleting all of them. The series is ongoing and there is now way of knowing the importance the characters will play in the future. Once the series has ended, I can understand revisiting this proposed deletion. Gerry D (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2012 (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.