Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Packer

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 to List of The Office (American TV series) characters. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Packer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article fails WP:GNG, and is almost entirely WP:PLOTONLY. The second paragraph of the lead isn't even about the character, and the article tags have been up since 2012. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant character in a very popular TV series. Should be reworked to meet WP:PLOTONLY criteria. ~RAM (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram1055: Could you emphasize how he's "significant"? Being popular doesn't mean his character warrants an article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Some Dude From North Carolina: Considering how popularity is a basis for notability, I think that does warrant an article. You wouldn't give an article to a character that isn't popular, would you? In furtherance of my point, I think that every other character has an article certainly means something. There is also a fair amount of articles on the characters sexism/racism. It is difficult to apply standards, as there isn't much (that I could find) on policy for fictional character's notability. ~RAM (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ram1055: But at the moment it's just WP:FANCRUFT. There's no actual information but plot. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Some Dude From North Carolina: Again, that's why I suggested the article should certainly be re-worked, but not deleted altogether. ~RAM (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Ram1055: But even if reworked, the article will essentially remain a redundant fork on Wikipedia. There's no information to add, only plot, and that won't make this article notable. Plus, if you want to keep the "content" from the article, just vote "merge to List of The Office (American TV series) characters" since once again, it can't be improved. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Some Dude From North Carolina: I feel that consistency is also important here. If the precedent on all of the other characters from this series have their own article, then it would be appropriate to keep this one. ~RAM (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ram1055: Just because other characters have articles, doesn't mean this one should. See WP:OTHER. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Some Dude From North Carolina, I am aware of WP:OTHER, I am drawing the parallel here. You've failed to prove that the article isn't notable. In my searching, I found significant coverage on this characters sexist and racist comments that didn't age well within the plot of the show - that is recent and significant. I also believe that if you have 100 things grouped together all notable absent compelling reason not, the 101st shouldn't be non-notable because it has a bad article written. As I've stated, it should be kept, but reworked as the most compelling argument here for deletion is that you don't like the way it is written. ~RAM (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Ram1055: My argument is that this article just fails straight-up fails WP:GNG. Does this character need an article? No, he does not. I'm saying that his article should be deleted, with some information being moved to List of The Office (American TV series) characters since all of his information can be found in episode-articles already. All but one source in the article is a non-primary source. Does Todd Packer need an article? No, he does not. It's just WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Some Dude From North Carolina, again, significant reworking to add additional sources is needed. I do not believe that this fails WP:GNG. There is an entire category for The Office Characters. The notoriety is there. The sourcing is what is lacking. I think that the argument you are making also fails WP:TEMP. The notability was there back when the series was airing. ~RAM (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (for now) - From Some Dude From North Carolina's own arguments above (his exact words: "But at the moment it's just WP:FANCRUFT. There's no actual information but plot." Plus, a bizarre claim that this is a content fork), it's evident that this is yet another "The quality of the article is bad, so it must fail GNG" nomination. Notability requires only the existence of reliable published sources. The quality of the current revision of the article is irrelevant. It's also impossible to "make" something notable, because notability doesn't change based on the state of the article.

I don't find the "It's popular, so it must be notable" or "But what about the other articles like this?" arguments compelling either. Dark knight 2149 10:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reception section or like, no sources found that suggest it might be possible to write one. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Todd Packer; there are quite a few cruft-filled character articles for The Office, but this one is by far the worst. As Piotrus notes, there's no Reception, just plot summaries. Listicles like [1] don't justify a stand-alone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no multiple indepdent, 3rd party, secondary reliable sources that discuss Packer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article needs multiple independent third party sources about the character to discuss it in an out-of-universe context. Without that, it's impossible to write an article that meets WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. I wouldn't object to a redirect if there's a suitable and useful target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters as it is a clear redirect target, as opposed to deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters, as ATD. Clearly not enough real-world notability to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 16 December 2020 (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.