Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs Miggins


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mrs Miggins

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fictional character of no external notability. No independent reliable sources. Sources cited are a BBC source (not independent of a BBC series), a blog (not reliable), a site selling a book by the actress who played the character (not really a source; if they meant the book it isn't independent), IMDb (not a reliable source). Suggest redirect to Blackadder the Third. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep "As Mrs Miggins said of the fleeing French aristos in Blackadder the Third: 'ooh la la and an éclair for both of us!' The visit of diminutive French ..." if she is being used by newstatesman.com as a reference she is notable enough for an independent article. We don't delete based on the references as they stand in the article now, but how they are outside of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, you added a source link to the article. However, it is not an indication of substantial coverage of the character in independent reliable sources. Rather it is an insubstantial reference to the character. We're here to discuss notability. You cite fails to address that. In fact, I fail to see how the quote substantiates that "Mrs. Miggins is a fictional character in the British sitcom Blackadder." (That said, I will grant that Mrs. Miggins is, in fact, a fiction character that exists in the British sitcom Blackadder.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fictional character with a single in-line citation. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why not redirect? Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination suggests redirection which is not achieved by deletion. The nomination's claims of non-notability seem to be false.  If it were non-notable, why would the nominator want to redirect it?  Obviously the topic, has been noticed both by the nominator.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I have explained to you previously, there is no case for a speedy keep here. I am suggesting the article for the non-notable topic be deleted and replaced with a redirect. That I "noticed" the topic has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. If I added a link to an article ouearhnjbgaewpirhn in an article you watch, you would "notice" it. However, ouearhnjbgaewpirhn would still not be notable, as you no doubt know. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To replace the article with a redirect, then ordinary editing suffices. Our deletion policy states that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making several contradictory arguments. You are saying it shouldn't be deleted because I didn't ask for deletion (actually, I did), that should simply redirect it, and that it shouldn't be redirected because it can be fixed. Please pick a defense for the article. Incidentally, the sources added give us one random quote from her, who played the character and that she owns a coffee shop. I can easily find more info on blatantly non-notable characters from most sit coms. If your argument is that no articles should ever be deleted, please say so. If you believe the character here is notable, please demonstrate it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But what is the reason for deleting and replacing with a redirect rather than simply redirecting? I don't see any reason for the deletion part of the argument, only for the redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the character is not notable, the article should be deleted. Because the character name is a reasonably logic search term, a redirect should then be created. Nitpicking rules to say that makes this AfD incorrect is Wikilawyering at its worst. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just converting the article to a redirect without deleting would resolve the notability concern. So I still don't see the necessity for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect: due to a lack of ability to WP:verify notability. As a note to other editors, if you don't object to redirecting, then !vote redirect. If you do object to deletion and/or redirection, then should offer a real reason for objecting, instead of WP:WIKILAWYERing some sort of technicality. Even a bad or subjective reason is better than WP:GAMEing the AFD discussion by looking for procedural reasons for objecting to the proposal. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleting or not is not a technicality. If an editor wants to delete the history in addition to turning the article into a redirect, they need a valid reason. None has been given here. Notability concerns can be addressed with a simple redirect, without deletion. Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Per nom. No reason is given for deletion, either before or without redirecting.  Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is not notable, counselor. That's the reason for deletion. We delete "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline", like this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not quite. A non-notable subject can be redirected to an appropriate target.  That is what is suggested in the nomination itself.  Still no reason given that deletion needs to be a part of the process. Rlendog (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:Deletion Policy. Rlendog (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Overruled. That speaks to "an unsuitable article". This is not a WP:NOT issue, this is a lack of notability. Whatever your reason for nitpicking this to death, I can't say. But I'll leave you to it from here on out. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. You may want to take a look at WP:POT.  For someone whining about wikilawyering, you are sure doing a lot of it.  I still don't understand why redirection doesn't adequately resolve the notability issue without requiring deletion.  Redirects don't need to meet the notability guideline (as your nomination admits that this would be an appropriate redirect).  So what is the point of deleting as well?  What is the benefit of deleting?  Since all your responses seem to invoke technicalities in order to avoid the issue, I have to assume there is no point or benefit.  As your last response linked to WP:NOT, you are presumably aware that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Rlendog (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Popular character, popular show, endless re-runs, 3 refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect or Merge. Unseen character is a plot device, and without secondary sources there should not be a stand-alone page on it. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep--wrong forum this isn't the place for discussing redirects--the talk pages of the articles involved is. And clearly this needs to be at least a redirect.  This would appear to be a case of forum shopping.   Hobit (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow. That's a strong accusation. What other forums do you think I took this to? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you _didn't_ take it to the forum a redirect discussion belongs in--the talk pages of the articles themselves. Isn't that where redirect discussions generally belong?   Hobit (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, it would seem you don't know the meaning often implied by "forum shopping". I brought this to AfD to get more eyes on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was using it in the "... the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment." sense. Merge and redirect discussions don't belong here. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of trying to obtain a favorable judgment... saying that we HAVE to keep this because we're not allowed to discuss redirects at AFD is pretty litigious too. If you want to keep, just provide a policy-based reason. But don't say we have to shut down the discussion as a matter of procedure, as that's a reason based in what Wikipedia is not. (Namely, that a perceived procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2011 (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.