Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey Quarters

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Quarters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor fictional character from WKRP. article has been restored post-merge, twice. It is mostly plot summary and OR/SYNTH, and the "sources" are seem to amount to every trivial ghit out there. The only commentary on offer is: this; not enough, in my opinion. Delete. Jack Merridew 19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the second time that someone has merged this article with no notice and no prior discussion. The comments above in favor of merger or deletion are so far divorced from what is actually in the article that I am led to question whetehr Mr Merridew even bothered to read either the article or the source material. What is meant by "the only commentary on offer"? Who's offering, other than you? There is ample "real world" secondary coverage of the subject matter, beyond the particular source you reference, and are cited in the article. The article qualifies for notability under the standards of Wikipedia, is well sourced and indeed meets and exceeds the standard for a "Good" article. Fladrif (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previously merged, not merged a second (or moar) time. There is more than adequate coverage at WKRP in Cincinnati#Characters. I have read the article, thanks, and reviewed all the 'sources' on offer, which is what I referred to above as 'commentary'. The source I called-out is lightweight and from a self-published source, but at least it is a few paragraphs on the character while all the others amount to passing mentions dredged up with Google. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, it wasn't merged in either instance. First, it was redirected by User: Eusebeus on September 26, 2009 without prior notice, proposal or discussion, and again by the same editor on September 28, 2009. It was restored (twice), extensively edited, and discussed on the Talk Page. Eusebeus apparently was satisfied, as he let the matter drop. Second, it was once again redirected by you on January 18, 2010, again without prior notice, proposal or discussion. After I restored it, you commenced this AFD. Fladrif (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you've been editwaring with at least three other editors about redirecting this character article to a more appropriate summary in the list of characters. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. In other words, you don't know the difference between a merger and a redirect, you've mischaracterized your own actions here, and you can't count. And, I'd venture that you don't know what an editwar is either, except that it's pretty clear from your edit history and talkpage that you know exactly what an editwar is, and that my edits on this article don't qualify as even a minor skirmish.Fladrif (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sometime 2+2=5. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She wasn't a "minor" character on the show, FWIW.—Chowbok ☠ 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure what's wrong with all those book refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
trivial mentions dredged up off teh interwebs. They amount to faking references; the bar is higher. Jack Merridew 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called research. If you actually have a substantive comment to make in support of your proposal, I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading it. Fladrif (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a low standard of referencing. The appropriate outcome here is ditching this heap of fanwank and using the "Hathor Legacy" piece to add a brief nugget of encyclopaedic content to the character summary in the list. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per consensus about secondary characters. Eusebeus (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of your argument is fatally flawed. Bailey is one of the seven principal characters in an ensemble cast, not a secondary character.Fladrif (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jan Smithers, the actress who portrayed her on WKRP in Cincinnati. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if it's redirected, it should be redirected to the WKRP article.—Chowbok ☠ 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesn't effect our notability rules (which revolve around what I can show you online, right now) but people seem to think she is a minor or medium character from the show. She is not, she is one of the few main characters. The show takes place in a radio station set, with the same characters every episode.. She was one of these main characters. Google books keeps bringing up non-viewable books, but I can say with a high degree of confidence, based on five years of finding and not finding refs to save articles, that sources do exist. She's a major character, from an influential show. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She got maybe the least airtime of the main characters (either her or Venus Flytrap), but she was indeed one of the principals. That plus the woman in a man's job aspect and the Bailey vs. Jennifer comparison (a la Ginger vs. Mary Ann) tip the scales for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly one of the principals, and I see no convincing evidence that the references are in any way "faked". Powers ^T 13:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as one of the principal characters in show with coverage such as [1], and [2]. -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per being a major character in a notable series. Sorry Jack, nothing minor about Bailey. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the principal characters in a notable series. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to indicate notability. Nominator's accusation of faking references is troubling and false. Edward321 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.