Deletion of Leroy Jethro Gibbs (3rd nomination)

Comment: While this AfD is about a very narrow family of articles, IMHO, it is really about the larger treatment of fictional items on WP.  These articles are actively edited, improving, may contain some crufty details (like most things on WP), and very likely to be recreated based on the popularity (which may or may not be equal to notability) of this TV show.  While none of these four items are specifically terms in a WP policy, in my view of common sense, I am being  and stating they are all reasons to keep and improve the content.  Otherwise this will be a whack-a-mole game for these articles going forward and you know that someone will use this AfD to start deleting fiction all over WP, even though one AfD is not "supposed" to be used as a precedent for another.  All the  gets old very quickly and and while I agree that there is plenty of cruft throughout WP, this AfD is not the appropriate forum for its debate.  Bump it up to an RFC or other larger audience and work towards changing the policy towards fiction.  Are these decent articles in need of improving?  Yes.  So then keep them, improve them, and move along. &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:WIKILAWYERING)

Comment: and clean up! - Far from "consisting entirely of fancruft", as indicated by the nominator, these articles contain quite a lot of encyclopaedic, biographical information. If these articles were Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons, instead of "biographies of fictional persons" we'd be praising them because of the amount of information that they contain. All of the articles are about the lead characters of a highly rated television series that, to date, has been running for over 6.5 years and has aired 157 episodes in NCIS (TV series)#International distribution|at least 39 countries. The characters are clearly notable from that alone.  may say that when an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established but that's really irrelevant because we're well beyond that. The article has been created, kept as the result of an AfD, nominated again, kept as the result of another AfD,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leroy_Jethro_Gibbs&action=historysubmit&diff=255539184&oldid=255538183 redirected against consensus, (ironically by the same editor who removed the AfD notice)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leroy_Jethro_Gibbs&action=historysubmit&diff=255605453&oldid=255539184 was then the result of a massive redirect/unredirect edit war.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leroy_Jethro_Gibbs&action=historysubmit&diff=272445946&oldid=255605453 It was finally rebuilt and then worked on for well over a year before it was again redirected against consensus with questionable justification,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leroy_Jethro_Gibbs&action=historysubmit&diff=357548345&oldid=357415135 After reversion of that it was then nominated again and that's where we are now, well beyond the point where the  statement was relevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAF||WP:WAF)