Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Martin (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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Cody Martin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article about a non-notable fictional character. While WP:NFICT makes it clear that there are no specific guidelines for fictional characters, these articles still have to pass WP:GNG, which from a look at sources, this does not. Google searches bring up this, other Wikipedia pages, and IMDB. Further, NFICT says "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." This article is 100% focused on the "in-universe". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  01:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  01:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neither this character nor Zack Martin have ever really been shown to have established notability beyond the show itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nothing has changed since 5 editors ( and me) last voted to keep at AfD. Notability is not temporary, at the time the series was in production there were numerous discussions about the character in reliable sources. Unfortunately, 4 years after the last series (the character was a main character not just in one but two series!) a lot of the links have gone dead but that doesn't detract from the character's notability at the time. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, but that was a piss poor AfD, beginning with the two-word nomination. The character still needs to be discussed in sources in a way this one isn't as far as I can see. Can you at least provide some of those dead links to show there ever was coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You do understand the concept of "dead" don't you? I can't show you the links specifically because they no longer exist. At the time the series were airing, and my kids were watching them, I fought to get editors to add some real world treatment but this is always a problem with fictional characters. Editors tend to treat characters in-universe even today. While the wording of the AfD might have been "piss poor", it nevertheless was a valid AfD. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant urls so we can determine what sort of site (NY Times vs. pure fan site) you're talking about. If the sources simply no longer exist, that isn't a strong argument for the subject's notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep main character in major films. That should be assumed to be sufficient for notability. Where and how we apply the GNG is up to our local judgment each time  DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how GNG works. Not every main character from a TV show or film deserves or gets a Wiki page. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per AussieLegend and DGG - The entire programme is set around Zack an Cody so clearly they're the 2 main characters, Sourcing characters is always difficult but it doesn't mean we should delete it, Not really seeing any benefit at all to deleting this at all ..... Also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not trying to clean up, trying to determine notability, and you're not providing any reasons for it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I've found 2 sources already, Also the dead cites can be rescued via the "webarchive" site. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Those links are pretty weak, to be honest. Those don't come close to "significant coverage" of the characters. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My first instinct it to vote keep, but I think the most likely outcome, if sources that prove real-world notability are not found, is to merge—however, it should be noted that it may be difficult to merge character articles for the main characters in these two series (due to the overlap between them) so intensive thought should be considered as to how to merge if that is the outcome that ends up occurring. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge is OK with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge is problematic, as there is no article to merge to, specifically because the character appears in two series and there is no article that covers both. Essentially, we'd need to create one - One of the Suite Life series main characters is probably the most appropriate name given the content - we could just rename this one to create it. This was a problem when Marcus Little went up for AfD. The result of that AfD was to merge the content to List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck, which was a strange target because he was a main character, not a recurring character. That's not the way we should be writing an encyclopaedia. It makes far more sense for this to remain a standalone article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge A starring character from two notable shows and a notable movie. I'd suggest merging the twins Zach and Cody's articles together since all of their contributions were done together. The Russo twins share an article, the Sprouse twins share an article, so I think the fictional Martin twins should share an article. Longevitydude (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody's questioning the notability of the shows or movie, but the notability of the character still hasn't been defended. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say that most of the keep votes boil down to inherited notability from the show and "there must be sources". I have personally written articles on fictional characters from the 1970s through 1990s, and I did not have trouble finding sources to establish notability – because the characters were notable.  A "where are they now" picture from some random website isn't enough to convince me that this character is notable.  Wikia would be the best place for these kinds of in-universe character biographies.  I notice that nobody has bothered to notify the nominator of the previous discussion despite pinging everyone who voted to keep it last time.  Perhaps an oversight? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an oversight, that I will now correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2015 (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.