Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mickey O'Malley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy  ~Talk  11:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Pcap ping  06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: Two others minor characters from the same series are also up for AfD, Articles for deletion/Captain Crimefighter and Articles for deletion/Addictem, so they should probably all be considered together. (The only other minor characters with their own article, The Bugman and Gaylord, look a lot like this one, so I'll AfD that too for consistency) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - Articles for deletion/The Bugman and Gaylord -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- Mostly excessive plot summary and excessive trivia which, as Pcap notes, seems to be original research based on some youtube videos. Reyk  YO!  18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better. It is a standard fictional character biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment These minor characters in cartoon series really don't seem to be sufficiently notable for an article on their own. Also too much plot detail and too much trivia, of which Wikipedia is not a collection. As others have said, a lot is OR based on watching YouTube, and it might be notable if third party sources were there to use as references for it instead, but they don't appear to be -- Boing!   said Zebedee  01:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Decided to strike that Delete, because having read comments about this and the other three, I'm not so sure now - I'll leave my original opinion as a Comment instead -- Boing!   said Zebedee  05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The argument above is not an argument against a proper merge, nor has the nominator given any. Whether it should be a separate article is less important, but in practice keeping a separate article is a better protection against loss of proper content. (that does not mean that all the present material should be kept, whether merged or separate--I think it and the others like it are considerably too detailed.)    DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is nothing to merge. It's pure WP:PLOT regurgitation. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD. No evidence of notability and no sources to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per comments above. Okip  03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way.  Policies are all that matters.  Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it.  All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously.  Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like.   D r e a m Focus  07:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 *   — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources, which are all Youtube clips, plainly and clearly fail reliability standards. I performed a (fairly quick) search of my own for additional potential sourcing and came up basically empty. I fail to see how WP:IAR applies here -- incorporating WP:OR articles on non-notable subjects isn't exactly "improving the encyclopedia" so much as it is "filling the encyclopedia with questionable content." Read What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means for clarity on proper application of that rule -- it's not intended to justify, you know, everything. This isn't "nothing is true, everything is permitted" territory :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:56, 2 March 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.