727:
Element X is notable because there are sources summarizing the storylines or trivia regarding the element? No, more sources would be needed, like reception and analysis for the element in question. If it's reception and analysis, it depends on the source, how in depth it goes into the subject matter, etc. I have experience editing fictional character pages and have been involved in arguments regarding some characters' notability. I have searched on Google per
577:. Sure, some people may hate Timothy McGee's storyline, but does that give him enough notability for a separate page? Do all characters that are negatively received deserve a separate page? There need to be more sources that prove the character's individual notability, and an interview might not be the best choice since it's primary (
726:
But there are a lot of sources about only the character, and/or the character is one of the main characters, you'd say. In this case, it depends on the content. If it's trivia, that's not notable. It's very common to find storyline summaries when searching for a fictional element. Does that mean that
323:
I observe that the only reason given for this deletion request is the belief that the subject is not notable enough. I observe that the last time this article was nominated for deletion was over fifteen years ago, when the show was more popular. This is an appropriate time to reevaluate it. I tried
335:
but it wasn't the clear and immediate trip I had for same-show character Jethro Gibbs. I note some problems with the
Knowledge article. The criticial reception section needs updating because the character changed personality in season eight and changed role after the departure of the actor who
826:
Sphinixster is just making us work for it. Without people checking sources, at least some
Wikieditors would be tempted to skimp, especially if they're fans of the fictional property or proponents of the concept. Any filing with a yes/no format is going to make people feel like opponents.
706:
are policies / essays saying that trivial information should not be included and/or does not prove notability. This is important because this is a fictional element from a popular show, and thus trivial sources would be common, but that does not mean that the character has
722:
The reviews only mention him in passing, and if sources mentioning him in passing are enough, that would mean that other characters that are obviously not notable, like characters that only appear in 1 or 2 episodes, would be deemed notable if they are described in a few
784:
about what sources are acceptable or not; Like any MoS element, it reflects how we (Knowledge) cover items. NOTTVTROPES is an essay about differentiating our coverage--again, presentation of data here on
Knowledge, not sourcing--from that website. Your statement that
252:
Although there is a
Reception section, I don't think it warrants the character's notability. The reviews may prove some kind of notability, but they seem to only mention him in passing. A quick Google search does not give much to prove the character's notability.
599:
I was referring to the fact that there is additional coverage in a reliable source. The interview is not "primary" for the fictional character, Timothy McGee, because that subject is a fictional character, and this is not some sort of in-universe interview.
744:). In this instance, the character's storyline and evolution are heavily discussed by fans, but does that really prove individual notability? Again, in WP:N, notability has to have significant coverage, so another reason would have to be added.
793:
as sourcing. That is a category error, and demonstrates that your arguments are void. The fact that you made reference to a real content guideline, N, does nothing to remove the inappropriate arguments undermining your position.
749:
I don't see what you are saying about "cite
Knowledge policies about how we present information rather than about sourcing," I had never cited Knowledge policies on how to present information. Would you care to elaborate,
501:
Since you have invoked these policies, I welcome you to explain how a 1,000+ word article examining the evolution of a character (in a way that fans of the series apparently dislike) is either trivial or a "TV trope".
221:
544:
We are not talking about fan tweets or
Facebook posts, though, but about a media outlet publication of substantial length on a subject routinely seen in millions of homes. I have also now added reference to an
297:
678:
rather than about sourcing, this is rebuttable evidence that there is no real argument against the sources in question. GNG is passed, article stays, discuss redirect/merge on the talk page if desired.
84:
79:
293:
713:
is an essay about interviews. I brought this up because a source that is an interview with the actor was added, and it is a primary source, which means that it does not prove notability.
740:. For example, Battle for Dream Island is a very popular web series with millions of views, but it is not notable because it does not pass the GNG and thus does not have a page (
526:
The problem is, does that article really prove a character's notability? Just because fans hated a character's evolution does not necessarily mean that the character is notable.
178:
422:
301:
215:
719:
if a show has SIGCOV, that means that show is notable, but not necessarily the characters, unless there are sources proving the character's individual notability:
74:
125:
110:
789:
is technically correct since neither are policies, but otherwise not accurate, in that you tried to use an MoS element and an essay to justify not
331:
289:
256:
I am sending this to AfD because I may be wrong and there are independent, reliable sources that don't just talk about him in passing (see
151:
146:
155:
912:
882:
862:
836:
821:
803:
767:
688:
662:
615:
594:
564:
539:
517:
496:
466:
438:
412:
379:
349:
317:
281:
58:
105:
98:
17:
324:
to plug "cultural impact of
Timothy McGee" into Google and got a lot of hits for a non-fictional musician. I was able to find
808:
Well then that's my mistake. My point with the TRIVIA / NOTTVTROPES can be deemed invalid, but other points are still valid.
138:
236:
203:
333:
182:
119:
115:
642:
329:
941:
40:
197:
366:), so it is not enough to demonstrate notability. It might be better to search "Timothy McGee NCIS" instead.
674:
if the best thing the nom can do to refute sources that others have raised is cite
Knowledge policies about
265:
193:
937:
846:
845:
search in my reply, and
Knowledge is an encyclopedia so if it's not notable, it should not be on there.
703:
480:
359:
36:
905:
855:
832:
814:
760:
710:
693:
587:
578:
532:
489:
431:
372:
345:
310:
274:
243:
229:
892:
799:
684:
142:
53:
696:
is a policy on what is notable and what is not, and it also includes information about sourcing.
94:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
936:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
877:
842:
728:
699:
610:
559:
512:
476:
461:
407:
355:
209:
900:
850:
828:
809:
755:
582:
527:
484:
426:
367:
341:
305:
269:
741:
795:
751:
680:
390:
134:
64:
896:
780:
TRIVIA is an MoS element, hence a guideline rather than a policy or essay. It says
423:
Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Reliability level of Looper.com?
363:
172:
888:
868:
737:
601:
574:
570:
550:
523:
503:
472:
452:
418:
398:
443:
A two-person question-and-answer exchange on the subject is hardly definitive.
257:
653:
787:
I had never cited
Knowledge policies on how to present information.
448:
362:
and Looper is unreliable because it is a content farm (owned by
932:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
731:, but no sources that satisfy the notability guideline came up.
645:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
549:
article that also touches on the evolution of the character.
899:
for the book sources. The other sources seem fine for now.
451:, and I have seen no assertion that it is not observed.
168:
164:
160:
228:
336:
played the lead. I'm going to sum my feelings up as
260:
as an example). If there is not, I would recommend a
573:
Popularity does not equal notability; it says so in
85:
Articles for deletion/Timothy McGee (3rd nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/Timothy McGee (2nd nomination)
651:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
736:popularity does not equal notability, as said in
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
944:). No further edits should be made to this page.
288:Note: This discussion has been included in the
867:I have added some additional sources. Cheers!
242:
8:
126:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
287:
72:
786:
266:List of NCIS characters#Timothy McGee
7:
716:Elaborating on the sourcing issues:
483:, so they do not prove notability.
75:Articles for deletion/Timothy McGee
24:
354:The sources provided are mostly
292:lists for the following topics:
111:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
913:03:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
883:02:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
863:01:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
475:Yes, however, the sources are
59:03:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
1:
837:20:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
822:13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
804:15:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
768:09:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
689:07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
663:19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
616:17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
595:10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
565:14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
540:10:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
518:15:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
497:14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
467:14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
439:07:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
413:21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
380:03:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
841:I have already said I did a
449:a published editorial policy
350:20:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
318:08:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
298:Science fiction and fantasy
282:08:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
101:(AfD)? Read these primers!
961:
891:, I would recommend using
676:how we present information
934:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
70:AfDs for this article:
791:using certain websites
183:edits since nomination
262:merge and/or redirect
99:Articles for deletion
547:Entertainment Weekly
393:determination that
893:Template:Cite book
782:absolutely nothing
294:Fictional elements
665:
320:
116:Guide to deletion
106:How to contribute
57:
952:
910:
903:
875:
860:
853:
819:
812:
765:
758:
661:
650:
648:
646:
608:
592:
585:
557:
537:
530:
510:
494:
487:
459:
436:
429:
405:
377:
370:
315:
308:
290:deletion sorting
279:
272:
247:
246:
232:
176:
158:
96:
56:
34:
960:
959:
955:
954:
953:
951:
950:
949:
948:
942:deletion review
906:
901:
869:
856:
851:
815:
810:
761:
756:
652:
641:
639:
602:
588:
583:
551:
533:
528:
504:
490:
485:
453:
432:
427:
399:
397:is unreliable.
373:
368:
311:
306:
275:
270:
189:
149:
133:
130:
93:
90:
89:
68:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
958:
956:
947:
946:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
847:WP:NOTDATABASE
824:
773:
772:
771:
770:
747:
746:
745:
734:
733:
732:
724:
714:
708:
704:WP:NOTTVTROPES
697:
668:
667:
649:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
481:WP:NOTTVTROPES
384:
383:
382:
360:WP:NOTTVTROPES
321:
250:
249:
186:
129:
128:
123:
113:
108:
91:
88:
87:
82:
77:
71:
69:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
957:
945:
943:
939:
935:
930:
929:
914:
911:
909:
904:
898:
894:
890:
886:
885:
884:
881:
880:
876:
874:
873:
866:
865:
864:
861:
859:
854:
848:
844:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
825:
823:
820:
818:
813:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
792:
788:
783:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
769:
766:
764:
759:
753:
748:
743:
739:
735:
730:
725:
721:
720:
718:
717:
715:
712:
711:WP:Interviews
709:
705:
701:
698:
695:
694:WP:Notability
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
677:
673:
670:
669:
666:
664:
660:
658:
657:
647:
644:
637:
636:
617:
614:
613:
609:
607:
606:
598:
597:
596:
593:
591:
586:
580:
579:WP:Interviews
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
563:
562:
558:
556:
555:
548:
543:
542:
541:
538:
536:
531:
525:
521:
520:
519:
516:
515:
511:
509:
508:
500:
499:
498:
495:
493:
488:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:
465:
464:
460:
458:
457:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
437:
435:
430:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
411:
410:
406:
404:
403:
396:
392:
388:
385:
381:
378:
376:
371:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
334:
332:
330:
327:
322:
319:
316:
314:
309:
303:
299:
295:
291:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
278:
273:
267:
263:
259:
254:
245:
241:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
195:
192:
191:Find sources:
187:
184:
180:
174:
170:
166:
162:
157:
153:
148:
144:
140:
136:
135:Timothy McGee
132:
131:
127:
124:
121:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
103:
102:
100:
95:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
66:
65:Timothy McGee
63:
61:
60:
55:
54:Seraphimblade
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
933:
931:
907:
897:Template:Sfn
878:
871:
870:
857:
816:
790:
781:
762:
675:
671:
655:
654:
640:
638:
611:
604:
603:
589:
560:
553:
552:
546:
534:
513:
506:
505:
491:
462:
455:
454:
444:
433:
408:
401:
400:
394:
386:
374:
364:Static Media
337:
325:
312:
276:
261:
255:
251:
239:
233:
225:
218:
212:
206:
200:
190:
92:
49:
47:
31:
28:
389:. I see no
216:free images
902:Spinixster
852:Spinixster
829:Darkfrog24
811:Spinixster
757:Spinixster
584:Spinixster
529:Spinixster
486:Spinixster
447:does have
428:Spinixster
369:Spinixster
342:Darkfrog24
307:Spinixster
302:Television
271:Spinixster
258:Ziva David
938:talk page
843:WP:BEFORE
729:WP:BEFORE
700:WP:TRIVIA
477:WP:TRIVIA
356:WP:TRIVIA
338:Weak keep
328:analysis
37:talk page
940:or in a
796:Jclemens
752:Jclemens
723:sources.
681:Jclemens
643:Relisted
179:View log
120:glossary
39:or in a
908:(chat!)
858:(chat!)
817:(chat!)
763:(chat!)
742:WP:BFDI
707:SIGCOV.
590:(chat!)
535:(chat!)
492:(chat!)
434:(chat!)
375:(chat!)
313:(chat!)
300:, and
277:(chat!)
222:WP refs
210:scholar
152:protect
147:history
97:New to
889:BD2412
872:BD2412
605:BD2412
571:BD2412
554:BD2412
524:BD2412
507:BD2412
473:BD2412
456:BD2412
445:Looper
419:BD2412
402:BD2412
395:Looper
391:WP:RSP
194:Google
156:delete
237:JSTOR
198:books
173:views
165:watch
161:links
16:<
895:and
833:talk
800:talk
738:WP:N
702:and
685:talk
672:Keep
575:WP:N
421:See
387:Keep
346:talk
326:some
230:FENS
204:news
169:logs
143:talk
139:edit
50:keep
581:).
264:to
244:TWL
177:– (
52:.
849:.
835:)
802:)
754:?
687:)
659:iz
479:/
425:.
358:/
348:)
340:.
304:.
296:,
268:.
224:)
181:|
171:|
167:|
163:|
159:|
154:|
150:|
145:|
141:|
887:@
879:T
831:(
798:(
750:@
683:(
656:L
612:T
569:@
561:T
522:@
514:T
471:@
463:T
417:@
409:T
344:(
248:)
240:·
234:·
226:·
219:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
196:(
188:(
185:)
175:)
137:(
122:)
118:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.