Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Armitage


 * 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. It seems there may be a consensus for a merge as well; I'd recommend discussion on the article talk pages about how best to accomplish this, or someone could just be bold and do it. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Willy Armitage

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

These characters meet neither the general notability guideline nor the suggested notability for elements in fiction guideline. Furthermore, the articles themselves consist entirely of plot summary, are wholly unreferenced, and in general fail to offer the kind of real-world perspective required of articles written about elements of fiction. Had redirected to Mission: Impossible for possible merge, or at least to retain edit history, but other editors would rather revert without entering into talk-page discussion; most recent one suggested AfD, so here we are. The plot summary, if whittled down from these articles, is essentially duplicative of content in the fourth paragraph of Mission:_Impossible (perhaps that would have been a more apt/specific redirect target). --EEMIV (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge/Redirect Someone reverting a redirect without going into discussion is a bad reason to start a deletion discussion. You either try again or start the discussion yourself. Having a redirect point to existing coverage is infinitely better than having a redlink. Instead try to educate said user and explain to them how crucial making a comment along with the action is. In extreme cases, redirects can also be protected to avoid reversion of redirects without discussion. So there's plenty of options to try before deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but at worst I think this ends as a redirect/merge -- and this, unlike open-ended talk-page discussions, has a deadline for establishing consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the articles are certainly notable and falls into the category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mission:_Impossible_characters. The fact that it lacks citations is cause for cleanup not deletion or redirect. With respect to not entering into talk-page discussions, the editors were not given a chance to since EEMIV took it upon themselves to force the redirect of multiple articles (reverting those edits of another single user) BEFORE reaching consensus of any kind. Jdrewitt (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when does falling into a category convey notability? Note that Rollin Hand has been tagged for sources since the end of 2007. Considering Hand is the most significant character (within the series), maybe second only to Jim Phelps, and no such sources have arrived, it's doubtful sources abound for minor characters like Armitage, Collier, and Carter. --EEMIV (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note the articles are no longer wholly unreferenced. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that references to IMDb verify name of actor, the role and the TV series; nothing added to body of articles. Insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More references have been added. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete So far, the only references are the BBC's h2g2 which anyone can edit, and the IMDB which doesn't seem to show notability. Should Barney Collier be bundled into this? I note that it has an AfD template but no AfD discussion page. dougweller (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't an issue with IMDB, it even has an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Movie_Database Whether it is a RS may still be an issue but not notability. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Barney is on this list. The link on the article might be redlinked because of the Twinkle tool's weirdness...or my own typo. I'll double-check it. Fixed the link on his article page. Thanks for the heads up. --EEMIV (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete All - none meet the notability standard and refs are not RS. ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All They all belong on a page (or portion of a page) that lists/describes characters, not on individual pages. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * if you think this, you are supporting a redirect, which is a keep. DGG (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi...I am the guy who updated the Rollin Hand entry, and created the Cinnamon Carter, Barney Collier and Willy Armitage articles. Hopefully, it is OK for me to chime in here to plead my case. (My apologies if this is inappropriate.) I put the articles out there because I felt that the precedent was set by other major fictional TV characters having entries. All of the ones I entered/updated are regular (not one-time) characters on the show, two of them for three seasons, and two of them for seven seasons. The show itself is a staple of pop culture, and the recurring characters themselves are staples of fictional spies of that era (the master of disguise, the femme fatale, the electronics expert, and the muscle man). As for there being no citations, all of my information is observations from actually watching the show (I've been watching it regularly on DVD during morning workouts.) I feel very strongly that there is a strong precedent for entries such as these. If these don't rate being on Wikipedia, then neither does the entry for Terri Bauer from 24 (one season) and Nina Myers from 24 (three seasons). In spite of the fact that the show is 40 years old, I think more people would recognize the characters from the Mission: Impossible than would recognize Terri Bauer. Thanks for your time and consideration. BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and then merge. There probably is not enough to really have individual articles, but a combination article for minor characters seems appropriate. I see no conceivable reason for editing them--in a combination article they do not have to be notable individually, the work itself is a sufficient source for descriptive information to meet WP:V, and the plot content does not seem excessive. the nominator has brought this here to enforce what he calls a merge--possibly he would have done better to pursue dispute resolution as is appropriate for content. Almost certainly he would have done better had he actually merged instead of merely redirected. I sometimes think I'm the only person here who sees the use of combination articles for minor characters as a way of ending these afds altogether. The question is the content, not how it's divided up. DGG (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually oppose a merge, more or less: when you get rid of the plot minutiae, what's left is already covered at the Mission: Impossible article. These entries serve only as handy redirect anchors; the topics are already sufficiently covered. --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep then merge as what exists in these articles could be the basis for much better individual articles but as they stand would be best contained either in the main series article or a List of Mission: Impossible characters article. There are 40 years of sources to show real-world notability for these characters but the current stubs lack that perspective.  - Dravecky (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all into as new List of Mission: Impossible characters seems like the obvious solution. The articles currently neither establish notability or real-world focus, but a show of such notability should certainly have a character list anyway. – sgeureka t•c 18:05, 11 January 2009 (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.