Anthony DiNozzo: Many parts of the Reception section are listicles, which does not prove 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#Anthony DiNozzo .  Spinixster (chat!) 08:39, 27 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!) 08:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and/or redirect to list of NCIS characters, no need for character to have his own page Elttaruuu ( talk ) 14:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm confused How does Tony DiNozzo and Ziva David exist and be B class if this isn't notable?  Never watched any of the shows, but it appears that someone put a lot of effort into that article... which suggests that some of that work might be useful here, or that that article's rating isn't really sustainable.  Jclemens ( talk ) 23:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens It can certainly be possible that a character is not notable on their own but notable with another character, see Category:Fictional duos (more specifically Category:Television duos ) for some examples.  Spinixster (chat!) 09:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you had an opportunity to look through that article to see if any of its references support independent notability for this article's topic?  Jclemens ( talk ) 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens I already did, but many of them talk about the duo more than Anthony himself.  Spinixster (chat!) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, if he is found to be NN as an individual character I would support a merge to the duo, rather than generically to the character list.  Jclemens ( talk ) 17:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge.  The duo might be a better target than the generic list, but I don't feel strongly.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources in the criticial reception section establish notability.  Upon a brief look-over, this article appears bloated and could benefit from a trimdown, but that's a content pruning issue, not an article deletion issue.  To top it off, I'm going to type "cultural impact of Anthony Dinozzo" into Google right now to see if I get any recent significant coverage: Looper in 2022 ScreenRant in 2023 I'm also getting hits on Google Scholar that specifically mention the character: Transmitting culture transnationally: the characterisation of parents in the police procedural and Providing the CSI treatment: Criminal justice practitioners and the CSI effect I observe that the last deletion discussion for this article was in 2008 when the show was more popular.  It's absolutely valid to reevaluate notability after all this time, but I think we would be able to establish notability even if we limited ourselves to only sources from the past few years + scholarly articles.  @ Spinixster : , I notice you nominated several police procedural character articles for deletion, and each time you cited notability as the only problem.  Is it possible the real issue is something else?   Later on in the discussion of Catherine Willows, you mentioned " fancruft ."  Upon a very, very brief look-over, most of them look top-heavy on the in-universe content.  Could it be that, and not notability, that's making these articles seem unencyclopedic to you?  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 22:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 It’s bold of you to assume that I was looking for someone to clean up the article, as I said in the nom, I was starting a debate over whether or not the character is notable.  Sure, fancruft may be a problem, too, but it is not that big of a problem to start an AfD over.  I already said the main issue was notability, since Wikipedia only allows notable content.  It needs to have WP:SIGCOV , having a lot of sources / scholar sources =/= notability.  If you think the character is notable, give proof, like you did.  That’s why I sent it to AfD in the first place, for people to debate over if something should be deleted or not.  Spinixster (chat!) 16:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, forgot to mention this, but Looper is owned by Static Media , which is an advertising content farm, so I would say it's unreliable.  Spinixster (chat!) 01:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not assume you were looking for someone to clean up the article.  I have seen Wikieditors say "The problem here is this clear-cut, bright-line thing outlined by clear yes/no policy" when they really meant "Yes also that but the problem is mostly this highly subjective and unclear thing that is a matter of opinion," and it looks like that could be what's happening here.  Subjective things and opinions still matter and can still merit action even though they're not clear yes/no bright-line policy issues and I think we need to normalize talking about them to prevent trouble.  If you say "we should delete this article because the subject's not notable," then the respondants will focus on whether the subject is notable and might not even notice anything else that might be wrong with said article.  If that is indeed what you meant "It's notable"/"It's not notable" is indeed the response you want, then everything's fine.  But I got an answer to that one in only a cursory search.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 03:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I might as well do an assessment on this too: As said before, I would say that Looper is unreliable because it is owned by Static Media , which is an advertising content farm.  As per the content, it seems to be ripped off a Reddit discussion, which doesn't necessarily prove notability.  ScreenRant is marginally reliable ( WP:RSP ), but I think it's reliable in this context.  But it seems to be more about Michael Weatherly , the actor who plays DiNozzo, than the character himself.  Just because a character has a fan following doesn't mean the character is inherently notable enough to have a separate page.  I cannot access the Google Scholar sources, so I cannot do an assessment of that.  I have done a WP:BEFORE search before this, and many sources I found were trivial ( WP:TRIVIA / WP:NOTTVTROPES ) or more about the actor.  As said in WP:FICTION , Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element; when a fictional element is presumed notable, a separate article to cover that element is usually acceptable.  So you'd need more sources about the character that are not just plot summaries or trivia but rather from a real-world perspective.  Spinixster (chat!) 08:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 5 .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 21:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve along the lines outlined in the discussion of the comparable character at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy McGee (3rd nomination) .  BD2412 T 03:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable character Lightburst ( talk ) 00:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Given DRV, giving it more time and eyes Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:35, 22 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus