Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Nick

Dr. Nick

[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!

Dr. Nick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Some mentions in passing but the only somewhat in-depth source is the cited open access academic article - but it's a two-page essay, and not very in-depth if one cares to read it. If that source is the only one providing a shred of notability, a case could be made for merging his entry with Dr. Hibbert. But really, both should be merged to List of recurring The Simpsons characters, which can easily accommodate a short bio and the current two-three sentences of 'reception'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is that way. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE & WP:SNOW. Cheers Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 13:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters as not individually notable. He is no more notable than Chief Wiggum, etc. Most of the non-inuniverse sources are just listicles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect unless notability can be shown. TTN (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep or speedy keep. AfD's not for considering merging; this never should have been nominated for deletion. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per SoWhy. 23.16.167.50 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Default keep as no intelligent or honest reason exists for deletion. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC) — 131.123.51.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment to closer "Speedy keep" is not a valid rationale, since it only applies if no one else has voted to merge or delete. So far, two people including myself have, meaning that it was not a spurious/invalid nomination._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, per WP:SK it applies unless someone argued for deletion or redirect. Merging is explicitly mentioned as an alternative that qualifies for speedy keep. So in fact there is only one !vote that spoils SK. However, the nomination was still incorrect because the nominator did not provide a reason for deletion but instead for merging and AFD is not the place for that. A later delete or redirect !vote does not mean the nominator did the right thing to bring it here. Regards SoWhy 21:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  "Seems to fail GNG" appears to be a valid rationale._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  It is notable by any reasonable standard. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It's pretty clear this AfD has been targeted by some SPA/CANVASSING group. Perhaps it has been linked in an off wiki forum for Simpsons fans? I think there is a template to tell people AFD=/=vote etc... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's also pretty clear that the nominator either doesn't like or is ignorant of the topic. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)