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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jethro Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Listing after disputed prod. This article about a fictional character doesn't establish the characters notability, is unreferenced, written in-universe, and is largely original research. Removing the OR parts of the article would leave a stub; coupled with the lack of viable content and the contested prod, I'm listing it for AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep- He's the lead character on a tv series currently airing on a major network, played by a well known actor. There are issues with the in versus out of universe perspective, and other issues as well, but those are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. None of those things demonstrate notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question In that case, what would establish notability? He's a lead character on a prime-time tv series. I'm not sure how exactly it isn't notable. I'd imagine that a character like this wouldn't exactly be lacking in third party reliable sources (not that I have access to them at the moment). Certainly even quick google search would certainly come up with something useful. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer. Non-trivial references from reliable, third-party sources. See WP:N. Right now, the article is completely OR. OR is not welcome here, so the cleanup you propose really amounts to deleting all the OR material; which is almost all of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I'm still not seeing why this warrants deletion. If it needs paring down to remove OR, then put up the tag for it to flag it for attention, or go for it yourself. If removing the OR leaves it as a stub for the time being, then so be it. I'm just not seeing why deleting this article is the right move. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - like IMDB maybe? What exactly makes the subject of yesterdays featured article notable - that's only a minor character? Neither non-familiarity with a subject nor the fact that an article needs work are reasons to rush to the AfD page. Lars T. (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Umbralcorax. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Umbralcorax. I.E. episode citations would be good for specific details etc. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Although, I love the show the article still needs alot of work (which by itself isn't a reason for deletion). The sections need to be cut down some removing as much inuniverse only stuff and plot synopsis as possible. The article should show the character's notability through the use of reliable 3rd party sources (which it doesn't). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Jasynnash2, Your arguments actually seem to describe a Week Keep with a request for cleanup. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer I obviously didn't word it well enough then (please accept my apologies for that). The weak delete is pretty basic as the article doesn't have reliable 3rd party sourcing that show the characters notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and does not provide any evidence of notability outside of NCIS, nor does it cite any sources for verifying its content, so merger is not an option. This article appears to be original research and there is no reasonable justification for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up all one has to do is go into any newsagent and peruse any one of a number of TV magazines for plenty of 3rd party commentary on any drama character etc. Gee, wonder how I can find them....only the among the biggest selling magazines around....Article quality is no reason for deletion, neither is a preponderance of plot material, just needs balancing is all. 10:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and clean up I agree with Casliber on this one --Ben Sawyer ^(t-c-e) 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Right, all the other characters (Abby, Ziva, McGee) have pages, but the main character doesn't? Doesn't that make him less important than the secondary characters? Hell, Ari has his own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingo182 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a reason for keeping -or- deleting an article. Let's stick to this article and worry about otherstuff when/if they comeup for discussion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Lead character on a series of over 100 episodes, aired for several seasons on a major US TV network. PKT (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT, WP:V and WP:RS. The one line of content serves no purpose that could not be served by NCIS (TV series). McWomble (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ooops. Looks like User:86.4.4.223 removed the AfD tag from the article (as well as the ((OR)) and ((In-Universe)) tags). I thought that this meant the AfD had closed, and removed all the unreferenced, In-Universe, and OR material from the article. Turns out that 86.4.4.223 was impersonating a moderator and the AfD hasn't yet closed. I've reverted the article to pre-86.4.4.223 condition until the AfD is resolved. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I believe the most important 'policy' to consider regarding this article is this line from WP:DELETE If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Here are a few sources that discuss various aspects of this character [1],[2],[3],[4] A Google News search using Gibbs and NCIS as search terms returns 743 results so I am sure there is information out there to source more parts of this article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The policy that matters is no original research. Google hits just mean the words appear on some web pages--they don't mean that those sites contain substantial coverage appropriate for use as references in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS for reasoning about why your argument isn't persuasive. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I was not using WP:GOOGLEHITS in the manner described in that essay, I provided 4 specific sources of information that could be used to source parts of this article and I just used those sources to add five citations to the article. My point was that other editors could use those Google News hits to add other references within the article supporting my opinion that problems within the article should be solved through regular editing rather than deletion.--Captain-tucker (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • """Comment""", Okay, Original Research is bad. So? You could edit the WWII, Roman Empire, or any other extremely important article to contain Original Research. Should it then be deleted? No, rather, the OR should be removed. The article then deserves a chance to get updated with sourced, non-OR research. Just because an article has OR does not make the topic automatically unnecessary, just poorly presented and possibly untrue. I don't care if most of the article is OR; just remove all of it and start over; don't jump straight to murdering the article without giving it a chance. 76.2.147.102 (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Bellahdoll[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.