Jump to content

Talk:Nate Archibald (Gossip Girl)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nate`s middle name - can someone add a citation because I dont remember the books ever stating nate`s middle name is Fitzwilliam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.139 (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the character named after the basketball player Nate Archibald? --72.177.196.243 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is!

Policy

[edit]

From what I've seen, the content in this page does not establish that this character warrants an independent article. No apparent improvements have been made since it was under review in 2008. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article seems best reserved for a site like Wikia, and I propose redirecting it (as has been done accordingly in other cases) unless notability is established soon. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @James26:: indeed this character does not meet the WP:GNG so I tried having the article deleted but the AfD was downvoted without GNG being demonstrated in any given source. Normally a character isn't notably simply because the TV show is notable, notability cannot be inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. AadaamS (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article content violates MOS:INUNIVERSE

[edit]

Hi @Skteosk: how do you think the material you re-added conforms to MOS:INUNIVERSE? Also, how do you think this character lives up to WP:GNG? Is there really a point to having an article contain a plot regurgitation for each season from the point of view of a particular character? Imho all those "season" sections containing in-universe information should be deleted outright. Or, as you suggested, perhaps the entire article should be deleted. AadaamS (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do take your point but your edit seemed to be an awkward halfway house, removing a couple of sections that no more violated the rules than every other section on the page. I was simply puzzled as to why you had singled those sections out, making the article seem incomplete even on its own merits. Skteosk (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Skteosk: Because I skimmed from the top, came to the bottom and then deleted my way back up again. The merits the article should live up to is enwp guidelines. So how about deleting all the "Season N" sections? There's nothing there to be rescued as each season already has an article of its own. AadaamS (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And a day later you hadn't done anything else. If you want to be logical and consistent about it, I guess you can be. Skteosk (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Skteosk: The subject of this article powerfully bores me. It quickly gets boring to actually read a whole section of meaninglessness just to make sure that I don't accidentally delete something encyclopedic. However, my two deleted sections provided you with a choice: either re-add bad material or improve the article by deleting the remaining "season" sections. Why did you choose the former? Logically an article having three nonencyclopedic season-sections about is actually superior in quality to an article having five nonencyclopedic such sections. Would you support an AfD for the whole article? In fact I have done more to improve this article than you have, you made it worse by re-adding bad material I made some effort to delete. AadaamS (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that you made it lop-sided by saying that some sections are okay and some aren't. I don't see how highlighting a bunch of text and deleting it is "some effort", neither do I see the wisdom in starting to delete chunks of an article without bothering to read the whole article first. What did you expect to be so different about the other three sections? I would neither support nor object to an AfD, I don't think the wiki is particularly the worse off for this article existing but I can't think of a decent argument for keeping it either. Skteosk (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect anything to be different about the remaining three sections, that's why I dreaded reading them before deleting them. It's hard work to read something very boring. And yes, wikipedia is worse off having nonencyclopedic content better suited to Wikia. Deleting without reading first didn't cross my mind but I'll go ahead and do that since we agree on that. AadaamS (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nate Archibald (Gossip Girl). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nate_Archibald_(Gossip_Girl)&oldid=1204196847"