Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert McCallister (Jack & Bobby)


 * 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   redirect both. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert McCallister (Jack & Bobby)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Also included in this nomination:
 * Jack McCallister (Jack & Bobby)

Both articles are fictional biographies of characters from the canceled WB series Jack & Bobby. Unfortunately, the series only lasted for one season and neither ever received significant third party coverage. Both articles are unsourced and simply contain information on what happened in the episodes. Both fail WP:N. Redfarmer (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Jack & Bobby. The only reason I found this AfD was because I was working on The Deep End.  While reviewing sources for a GA nom, I found an article in The New York Times comparing the character Matt Long plays in The Deep End to Jack McCallister.  I did a search on that name to find out more and discovered the article.  I'm not seeing a need for deletion as this is a notable actor playing a somewhat notable fictional politician.  If someone like myself is going to go looking for this subject based on its discussion in reliable sources, then we should at least have a redirect, with the option to merge any useful content.  No need for any deletion.  It should be said, it is helpful to readers to be able to find the redirect simply by typing Jack or Robert McCallister in the search box, and seeing the dab come up.  Please remember we are writing for the reader, and this means keeping redirects to facilitate information retrieval.  Unfortunately, many people forget this fact. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a problem following this argument because half of it you seem to be arguing for keep while the other half seems to be arguing merge and redirect. Problem is almost everything you just said is a strawman argument. I've never argued against a redirect, and I'm all for a merge if someone really wants to put that much episode synopsis in the main article . You found a source that briefly mentions one of the roles--fine, but I have a feeling it fits in better with The Deep End than with the articles in question. Can you find any sources that demonstrate notability for either character? Redfarmer (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are not against a redirect, then what is the problem? We should  close this as merge, redirect the article, and keep the content in the edit history.  It is already duplicated, for the most part, in the article.  If someone wants to merge it into the article they can pull it out of there.  Most of the content comes from an episode/plot/character analysis anyway.  I'm not sure what your question is about the notability of the character.  The actor and the show are both considered notable, so there isn't a problem.  Source indexes have references to the character in the news, and Variety, and novelist Brad Meltzer has episode information about the character on his website as does the official Warner site.  The show has also won awards. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're committing a fallacy: just because the actors and the show are considered notable DOES NOT mean the characters are notable. The characters need significant third party coverage apart from information on the actors and the shows in order to be considered notable. An instance of a character who has received such coverage apart from the actor and the show is Spock from Star Trek. Redfarmer (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no fallacy here. I'm fully aware of WP:INHERIT, and have been for many years.  As I said above, the character is notable and covered in the appropriate sources .  Additionally, Matt Long is a notable actor, and the show is notable and has won awards. In other words, having a redirect from the character name to the show is important, and that's how I found this AfD.  If you're not opposed to a redirect as you say above, then what is it you are still discussing here?  Time to move on, perhaps and get some work done, or are you still semi-retired? Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have yet to quote third party sources that discuss the characters. With the exception of the NYT article, which only barely mentions one of the characters, all of your sources are primary sources. Brad Meltzer was one of the creators of the show and the Warner Bros. site is obviously a primary source. You claim to understand WP:INHERIT but two comments in a row have argued for it. Matt Long and the show itself being notable are completely irrelevant. Please quote a third party source that gives significant coverage to the characters. Redfarmer (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not once argued in all my time on Wikipedia, that notability is inherited, not once. You appear to be missing the subtlety between a notable character played by a notable actor on a notable show; all three are independent.  You appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing and not paying attention to the links to third-party sources I've already provided above, such as Variety and all the secondary sources listed in the search indexes.  Since there is no difference between those sources and the NYT source you refer to, I'm curious why you keep ignoring it.  Since you aren't against a redirect, what is it you are arguing for? Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't evaluate the Variety source since there is no link but the Google sources appear to discuss the show with only brief mentions of the character, which is not significant third party coverage. You claim not to have argued for WP:INHERIT but I remind you of your comments:
 * Additionally, Matt Long is a notable actor, and the show is notable and has won awards.
 * The show has also won awards.
 * I'm still arguing because this is a WP:AFD debate in which you seem to be giving keep arguments for a merge. I believe the articles should be deleted because there is no significant third-party coverage of the characters. A merge is inappropriate because it is currently just synopsis of the episodes. Whether there is a redirect afterward or not is irrelevant to my argument. Redfarmer (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the subtleties. What you call "no significant third-party coverage of characters" is contradicted by the sources listed above and many others, for example, this one in the San Francisco Chronicle.  This is not just synopsis of the episodes, but extended discussion of the character in many sources such as the kind linked above.  The content in Robert McCallister (Jack & Bobby) and Jack McCallister (Jack & Bobby) belongs in the article on Jack & Bobby.  You yourself have argued this above when you claimed it was a "synopsis of the episodes".  Therefore, you have been arguing for a merge and redirect from the very beginning. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's information about casting and a plot device from the first episode of the show, both of which may be appropriate for the show article or an episode article (if it existed). This continues to be a strange discussion; even if it is appropriate for the character pages, you are arguing merge for information that's not currently in the article. If it was in the article, I'd be all for a merge. Redfarmer (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that information needs to be merged from the character pages that you nominated for deletion into the parent Jack & Bobby article where it belongs. Please consult the standard cast, character, and episode sections that are typically found in television series articles.  The ideal close is taking the content from both articles and placing them on the talk page of the television series article with a note about the merge, and then redirecting. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge both articles into Jack & Bobby. Individually, the subjects are not notable, but a merge into the relevant main article should be non-controversial. The above dispute is odd, since both users seem to be in favour of a merge as well.--resident (talk)  10:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to a merge because the current articles are just one long episode synopsis. Redfarmer (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't oppose a redirect though?--resident (talk)  11:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, wouldn't oppose a redirect, although I tend to think it wouldn't be necessary as "Robert McCallister (Jack & Bobby)" isn't necessarily a likely search term and they're already mentioned on respective disambig pages. Redfarmer (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly it is a likely search term given the currency of the search term and Ghits. As I have previously explained, that is the only reason I came to this AfD.  Again, I was working on a GA nom, checked a 2010 NYT times source that compared Long's character on The Deep End to this one, and typed in "Jack McCallister" in the Wikipedia search field to find out more information.  I was immediately given three results, with the third listing Jack McCallister (Jack & Bobby), and one click brought me to Jack & Bobby.  You seem to be arguing that we should not write the encyclopedia for the reader, but for people who argue on AfD. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to maintain WP:AGF but you're making it difficult rehashing the same arguments and attacks under someone else's discussion. I'm done arguing, especially in this thread. I respect Hongkongresident's opinion, even if I don't agree with it. I'll respond to anything you want me to respond to in the thread above. Redfarmer (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect for the sake of building a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect, merge anything useful at editorial discretion. Not notable in their own right but certainly plausible search terms. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, one-season cancelled shows on defunct networks do not deserve this level of detailed treatment. Redirection is only acceptable to get this AfD closed, but I would prefer deletion. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - per the above to Jack & Bobby -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:29, 30 November 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.