Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy McGee (3rd nomination)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

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.

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 Ziva David as an example). If there is not, I would recommend a merge and/or redirect to List of NCIS characters#Timothy McGee. Spinixster (chat!) 08:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 08:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 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 some analysis [1] [2] [3] but it wasn't the clear and immediate trip I had for same-show character Jethro Gibbs. I note some problems with the Wikipedia 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 played the lead. I'm going to sum my feelings up as Weak keep. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources provided are mostly WP:TRIVIA / WP:NOTTVTROPES and Looper is unreliable because it is a content farm (owned by Static Media), so it is not enough to demonstrate notability. It might be better to search "Timothy McGee NCIS" instead. Spinixster (chat!) 03:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no WP:RSP determination that Looper is unreliable. BD2412 T 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Reliability level of Looper.com?. Spinixster (chat!) 07:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A two-person question-and-answer exchange on the subject is hardly definitive. Looper does have a published editorial policy, and I have seen no assertion that it is not observed. BD2412 T 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 Yes, however, the sources are WP:TRIVIA / WP:NOTTVTROPES, so they do not prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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". BD2412 T 15:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 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. Spinixster (chat!) 10:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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 Entertainment Weekly article that also touches on the evolution of the character. BD2412 T 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 Popularity does not equal notability; it says so in WP:N. 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 (WP:Interviews). Spinixster (chat!) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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. BD2412 T 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if the best thing the nom can do to refute sources that others have raised is cite Wikipedia policies about how we present information 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. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Notability is a policy on what is notable and what is not, and it also includes information about sourcing.

  WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTTVTROPES 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 SIGCOV.

  WP:Interviews 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.

  Elaborating on the sourcing issues:

  • 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:
    • 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 sources.
    • 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 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 WP:BEFORE, but no sources that satisfy the notability guideline came up.
  • popularity does not equal notability, as said in WP:N. 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 (WP:BFDI). 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.

  I don't see what you are saying about "cite Wikipedia policies about how we present information rather than about sourcing," I had never cited Wikipedia policies on how to present information. Would you care to elaborate, @Jclemens? Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TRIVIA is an MoS element, hence a guideline rather than a policy or essay. It says absolutely nothing about what sources are acceptable or not; Like any MoS element, it reflects how we (Wikipedia) cover items. NOTTVTROPES is an essay about differentiating our coverage--again, presentation of data here on Wikipedia, not sourcing--from that website. Your statement thatI had never cited Wikipedia policies on how to present information. 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 using certain websites 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. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that's my mistake. My point with the TRIVIA / NOTTVTROPES can be deemed invalid, but other points are still valid. Spinixster (chat!) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said I did a WP:BEFORE search in my reply, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so if it's not notable, it should not be on there. WP:NOTDATABASE. Spinixster (chat!) 01:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional sources. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, I would recommend using Template:Cite book and Template:Sfn for the book sources. The other sources seem fine for now. Spinixster (chat!) 03:40, 10 September 2023 (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.