Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midge and Bob Pinciotti (2nd 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 delete. Sandstein 17:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midge and Bob Pinciotti[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012, this article is entirely sourced to the series' episodes themselves; worst still, a before search didn't yield substantial sources. This looks more like a page written by a fan set in the That 70's Show universe rather than an encyclopedic entry. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding plenty of coverage of these fictional characters for example here. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where? All I see in that search are "Where are they now?" stories about the actors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy that prohibits where are they now type coverage? My reading of the notability pages is that lasting coverage is a clear indicator of notability. And indeed articles such as this one are quite substantial. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is exceptionally poorly referenced and consists of original research by a dedicated fan. This violates policy. FloridaArmy, a "where are they now?" article published in a reliable source might be acceptable if it devoted significant coverage to the fictional characters as opposed to the actors who played those characters. The distinction is critical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's far more than one fan. More than 100 editors have edited the article. The content is based on plot information from episodes, which are acceptable primary sources so it's not OR and therfore doesn't violate policy. It does lack real world treatment of the characters so there is an issue there though. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, the article you describe as "quite substantial" is all about the actor, and mentions the character only fleetingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of That '70s Show characters. This is far, far beyond the amount of in-universe information that is acceptable, and there's no other referencing. A HuffPost article about the actor is not the type of thing that will make the character meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles about the an actor do not make a character they played notable. If lots of fans doing editing here was a reason to keep articles, then we would have never deleted any article that mentioned anything at all related to Star Wars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2018 (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.