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 Clique series characters. As there is already an entry there, no need to merge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massie Block[edit]

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:FICT and WP:N in having no significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Failed PROD with prod removed for no stated reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unnotable? See this! Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google results do not equal notability. Significant coverage in reliable, third party sources establish notability of the character, not fansites, YouTube Videos, and sales pages for the books.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No real world coverage in indepedent reliable sources. Please also see Wikipedia:Search engine test for the limitations of a Google search. --Phirazo 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, merge and redirect to List of The Clique series characters. This can be collapsed into a list entry fairly well. --Phirazo 03:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Also, it is hard to "fail" the heavily disputed and still under consideration fictional guideline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google test is near useless here, due to the amount of false positives and useless sources, and traffic statisitics mean nothing. WP:N is undisputed, and this article certainly fails that. --Phirazo 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Google test demonstrates verifiability (just because we have to fish through the sheepheads to get to the walleyes and perch does not mean the walleyes and perch are not there, too) and the traffic statistics demonstrate an element of notability, i.e. real world interest. WP:N is heavily disputed (see its talk page and edit history, not to mention Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability or this category) and it passes it anyway. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The actual Notability guideline requires reliable secondary sources. I don't see why that is so controversial. Most of the controversy seems to be about inclusionism vs deletionism. Articles don't get a free pass due to traffic. See WP:BIGNUMBER. --Phirazo 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Secondary sources would be reviews and interviews that mention the character. Articles that are legitimate search terms do not get deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Articles that are legitimate search terms do not get deleted." What? Where did you get that idea? What is a "legitimate search term" anyway? --Phirazo 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I got that idea from common sense and logic. A legitimate search term is something that people who come to Wikipedia are likely to search for by typing in the search area. When large numbers of editors work on an article and the article gets lots of traffic, it is likely something that many editors and readers beyond the number that will likely comment in a five day AfD think legitimate. Moreover a legitimate search term is one that can be redirected at worst. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ redirect to List of The Clique series characters. Nothing significant here that can't (and isn't) already mentioned there. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: nominated versus current version. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not RS - and throwing in two wiki links does not establish notability. Does show there is a place to transwiki this stuff if anyone wants it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titular characters are at least notable enough for merges and redirects without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of The Clique series characters in the absence of substantial coverage specific to this character. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (by redirecting) to List of The Clique series characters - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2008 (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.