Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddie Fitzpatrick


 * 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. DGG provides a good subjective description when he mentions, "Keep as a major character, but find some way of condensing the description of the other characters." Therefore, keeping the article. In case reliable sources are not placed, there's no prejudice to another AfD soon enough. (non-admin closure)   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  11:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Maddie Fitzpatrick

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fixing nomination for an IP. Deletion rationale (from articles talk page) is "PROD contested with no improvement. It's totally in-universe, has no relevant secondary sources and lacks any real-world claims to notability." I remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep To be honest I'm having trouble accepting that this nomination was made in good faith. It seems more a knee-jerk reaction to my removal of a plot tag that the nominator kept improperly adding to a character article that contained no plot. Even before I could finish my explanation as to why use of the tag was inappropriate the nominator had prodded the article, and then, within a few minutes after I contested the prod had nominated the article for deletion. The nominator seems more interested in wholesale deletion of content, rather than improving articles, even when a suggestion to that effect is made. The article definitely needs work but if the nominator had looked at the article's edit history he would have seen that there have been some genuine attempts to improve it in recent months. The subject is one of the main characters in a television series and, like the other main characters, has a separate article. She has appeared in both The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck (as well as Hannah Montana) and it is easier for these characters to have individual articles than to juggle two different character articles, one for each series, since much (but not all) of the information is relevant to both series (while all of the information is relevant to each character). Unlike some of the other articles, although it has few references, (partly thanks to the nominator who removed one) the content is verifiable by numerous references to specific episodes mentioned in the article. These need to be improved but, like anything, it requires more than one person to achieve. The article averages over 400 page views per day, so there's obviously interest in reading the article, which contains content that shouldn't be lost through deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * 1) Except for a mention of the actor that plays the part, the entire article is about the plotlines of the character.
 * 2) I attempted to add tags that would guide future editors in improving the article, but those were summarily removed.
 * 3) The reference removed was for Google maps, attempting to link a fictional residential address to a real-world company. Irrelevant and misleading in the extreme.
 * 4) The nomination was made in good faith in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia after other good faith attempts were removed without any improvement to the article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you on your talk page, the information in the article is not a plot, and the tag that you added was therefore inappropriate. It is meant for instances such as this, where the plot of a film, novel or TV episode is too long, not for use in biographical articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to expand on this (unfortunately I had to take a break while I went to a funeral), the biography section of the article is only 509 words, much of which is taken up by references to episodes, rather than by citing them (which would reduce the length significantly), so it's not long at all, especially given that this character has appeared in 77 episodes of three different programs. A "plot-like" template would have been inappropriate in any case. It's a long jump from saying the "plot" is too long to nominating the whole article for deletion, but that's exactly what you did after I removed the plot-tags, so I'm still having trouble accepting that this nomination was made in good faith. Wholesale deletion of content is rarely considered an improvement. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is notable not only for the show but having been discussed in trade publications and Tween-focused news programs.  Where else are we going to find stupid information like this except Wikipedia.  It's not like we're going to run out of shelf space.  EnabledDanger (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a major character, but find some way of condensing the description of the other characters. I note that plot and characters are separate elements of fiction. A  description of the characters requires some mention of the plot & vice versa, but they are not the same. They are trypoically discussed in close relation to each other, so the Wikipedia method of separate articles is a little artificial, and, in my opinion, not the most helpful arrangement.  But it has proved to be the only method that prevents the information from disappearing here.    DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 15 September 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.