Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Knight (Forever Knight)


 * 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 delete. Fails to provide substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:V and no sources were offered in this discussion. Pigman ☿ 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick Knight (Forever Knight)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:FICT. Character in a single 3 season series (and pilot). Complete plot regurgitation, indeed, it literally gives the entire plot of the show from start to finish, covering every episode, with some added WP:OR. Unsourced, multiple WP:NPOV violations. Failed merge/redirect attempt. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions.   —Collectonian (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - No notability established at the moment, but I bet there are enough sources out there to satisfy if someone were to work on the article a bit more. Cirt (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep lead character of a multi-season series. JJL (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per User:Cirt. Article should be tagged for cleanup, but the character is more than likely notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep to strongly consider stubbifying/merging outside AFD  The main characters of a three-season series often have secondary sources to justify a separate article, although plot regurgitation usually wins out. But that's a cleanup issue where I don't favor AFD unless the article has been heavily tagged for some time. Nick Knight (Forever Knight) is currently just tagged for tone. – sgeureka t•c 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Change recommendation to redirect or weak delete after reconsideration. Forever Knight is detailed enough, and the character article just repeats it in more detail (so there's nothing worth merging). I am completely open to recreation of the article if it no longer fails WP:FICT as much as it currently does. – sgeureka t•c 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly notable. Bad show with bad acting, but notable. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The show is notable, however notability does not inherit to a single character article and there is no List of Forever Knight characters article to cull down and merge to. Collectonian (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a single character, it's the lead character. Most leads characters have articles of their own. The article certainly needs work, but it's notable enough to stay. --Andromeda (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, notability does not inherit (and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument and "most" is a complete exaggeration). Being the lead character does not equal instant notability.  WP:RS and WP:V still apply.  Character articles are not automatic.  It goes in the main first.  If the character section gets big enough, then it goes to a List of characters sub article.  Only if a specific character has plenty of real-world notability that can be verified by reliable sources should an individual article be considered and that notability should be established on creation, not two years later because all of a sudden the article may get deleted. I love the show, I love Nick, and despite your note in your revert of my earlier attempt to redirect to the main, I don't care about spoilers.  The article completely fails WP:FICT and is nothing but pages of plot regurgitation. Collectonian (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs work but it's the main character of a 3 season series. It's notable enough.--Andromeda (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge to a character list). Fails WP:FICT. Written from a completely in-universe perspective with no assertion of real-world significance. The keep arguments rely on inherited notability. If demonstration can be made that real-world significance exists, it can be kept. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2007 (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.