Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Kelso

Bob Kelso

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Bob Kelso (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)

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability. Sources are episodes (primary) and a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Scrubs characters. Spinixster (chat!) 14:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• 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!) 14:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:GNG. Note, you'll find more results under "Dr. Kelso" or similar.
  1. McFarland Book Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy with a large amount of SIGCOV of the character in a variety of ways [1][2]
  2. Character used as a case study for a few paragraphs in leadership book[3]
  3. IGN has several articles with secondary SIGCOV of Kelso including several reviews and at least one list, eg [4][5][6][7], we can count this as one very solid source.
  4. Some coverage around ethics and kelso in this book [8]
  5. Here's some coverage of the character's arc and portrayal through the show 10 years after. [9]
  6. Other short bits of coverage related to:
     • diversity and race [10]
     • gender [11]
     • more medical ethics [12]

Note this was not an exhaustive search.

—siroχo 03:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources...

• First source mostly mentions Kelso in plot summaries, so I don't think those parts prove notability. I do see parts that compare him to Dr. Cox or talk about their conflicts, so perhaps that can be used, but I don't see it as a reason as to why he's notable.
• Second source is just a case study, as you have said, but it's perhaps not the best source to prove notability since it's only a paragraph.
• IGN sources include 4 episode reviews and 1 list. I don't think a character being featured on a best characters list, especially a list for Scrubs characters only, really proves notability; the other 4 episode reviews doesn't seem to go much in depth about the character from a real-world perspective (he's mostly mentioned in plot summaries)
• The fourth source has a commentary section that uses one of Kelso's decisions on the show as a case study. It's better than the second source, but it is just one episode it's taking the case study from, so it might not be good to prove Kelso's notability, but it can perhaps be used for the character section.
• Fifth source only briefly mentions the character and sums up his storylines. It's pretty short and has no other commentary on the character.
• Sixth sources:
  • Diversity and race source is a brief mention as an example of racism.
  • Gender source is also just a brief mention as an example of the slang word "hellcats"
  • Based on previews because I can't find a full version of the source anywhere, the Medical ethics source seems to focus more on Dr. Cox and only mentions Kelso when Cox interacts with him.

So overall, there are a lot of sources that talk about Kelso as a character. While not a really good point towards notability, I do think the major sources about the characteristics of Kelso can be used, like the first and fourth. Spinixster (chat!) 04:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

First source mostly mentions Kelso in plot summaries. You are mistaken. —siroχo 04:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Emphasis on mostly. I did explain at the end of it that there are some parts that can be used. Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Mostly" is a relative term, and while "Does the source mention the subject?" is an either/or question, "Does the source mention the subject enough?" is not. I think we need to embrace the subjectivity here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"Does the source mention the subject enough" is important here because for an article to be notable, it needs extensive coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Plot summaries don't count since they are trivial. Sources that cover the topic extensively from a real-world perspective do. Spinixster (chat!) 03:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be reading that essay in an unconventional way. I'd suggest a careful reread. Most of that essay has to do with Wikipedia articles, with a minor reiteration of the importance of secondary sources. You also may have missed the section of that essay, § Plot Summaries as Sources, which contradicts your own summary of that very essay almost to the word. —siroχo 03:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That section was added in 2022 with no consensus, and the lead of the article says ... an article about a work of fiction or elements from such works should not solely be a summary of the primary and tertiary sources, they should also include real world context from reliable secondary sources. Coverage of fictional topics should provide balanced coverage that includes both plot summary and real-world context. In this case, plot summaries would be a tertiary source unless there is commentary, and there needs to be enough commentary on the character to prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 06:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear if you are implying anything and if so what it is. Is it your assessment that Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy is a tertiary source? —siroχo 08:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant that the plot summaries with no commentary are tertiary. Again, I explained that there are content that can be used. Spinixster (chat!) 11:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Per sources found by Siroxo. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I used some of the sources provided in the article, but of course I didn't do the ones I can't access. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)