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 and redirect to List of NYPD Blue characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Ortiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with @Uncle G finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 10:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Its an article unsourced for over a decade and zero edits in 2021. You can just holding redirect stuff like this, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to keep articles on fictional characters we need to in some way show that they are notable in the real world. The above contributors have offered no sources showing notability. The burden is on them to prove the subject is notable, not on the nominator to prove it is not notable, for you cannot prove a negative. Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause, this is not 1925 Alabama.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, their stances are really more of a procedural keep, no one appears to actually be defending the article's notability itself. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sergecross73, You are right, but I still think that defending spam-like articles on technical grounds is WP:POINTless disruption that hinders, not help, the project. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I hear you. I'm just saying, it's a low traffic fictional character from an old discontinued TV show. There's no way it survives either way. If this is a procedural keep, it's just going to be an uncontested bold redirect instead. I just felt it was a strange response when no one was advocating actual notability. But regardless, this'll be resolved either way, so it's fine. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious GNG fail. Inclusionist speedy keeps above are so reminiscent of the first decade of this project. Now we are in the business of cleaning hoaxes and spam, not promoting it. PS. That said, the op should have mentioned notability as an issue, lack of sourcing is less of an issue and can be easily fixed just by referencing the TV show itself, for example - that would address the WP:V failing but not GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, putting aside the issues with Coin's bulk nomination of articles, this fails every single WP:GNG check, in addition to generally being WP:FANCRUFT. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 06:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of NYPD Blue characters or NYPD Blue, as a plausible search term. Otherwise, agree this fails GNG and is FANCRUFT.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails to prove GNG and indeed reads more like a Wikia/Fandom page than a Wikipedia article which is always a sign of CRUFT or CRUFT-adjacent material. doktorb _words^deeds 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I struck my comment above because I was being too harsh in my rhetoric when I wrote it. Articles on fictional individuals is one of the places where Wikipedia has had the most cruft, and where cruft has survived by far the longest. This is an area where it has taken a huge effort to pare back cruft, and the process has been very long and difficult, and the amount of articles created by people who could not be bothered to even include a source that was primary to the subject is huge. So this is an area where proceduralist objections to making progress is really galling because it has been a very hard striggle to make any progress at all. This article very clearly needs to be deleted. I ams sorry for using too harsh language aginast grandfather clauses in general in my earlier argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: putting aside the bulk nomination of articles, fails WP:GNG clearly CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of NYPD Blue characters. There is not a lot of evidence that this character is individually notable, and there isn't a lot of content here (no sources) that warrants the effort of a merge. jp×g 01:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of NYPD Blue characters. There is trivial coverage of this character in WP:RS, but it still fails WP:GNG.^[1][2][3][4]

SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2021 (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.