- 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter (but not the actual content, which is poorly written) of this article has been merged to the parent article, The Convict, with consensus of three editors opposed by the original author. There are no GFDL issues. The character "Prison Mike" has only ever appeared in one episode of one show, and at this stage it does not seem likely that the character (actually merely a persona adopted by the main character) will appear in any other episodes. I suggest that we discuss this article with a view to deleting and restoring as redirect, rather than accept the protracted attempts of the original author to remove the link to the merged article. Tony Sidaway 05:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no redirect. I don't see this as a likely search term, so the redirect is unnecessary. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect- Something this minute doesn't even approach deserving it's own page. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- He's a minor character who only appeared once (for a whole 3 minutes) and is unlikely to appear again. In addition, most of this article is just rehashing the episode and Michael's life, which are already in their respective articles. Reading over Talk:List of characters from The Office (US), it has consistently been the consensus that characters who do not appear in at least two episodes do not merit their own article, nor even a mention in a list of minor characters, due to their non-notability.Eatcacti 09:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others, probably no reason to even keep a redirect at this stage. Wizardman 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly; this is (to use an overused phrase, but appropriate here) fancruft. Cruftbane 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. Well written, informative, no harm. Tony Sidaway's opinion that the article "poorly written" is not only wrong but it sounds personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay123 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for that. I could have made my point without making a hurtful statement of opinion. I think I've been unnecessarily antagonistic in this affair in general, and that wasn't right. I do think that the current write-up of Prison Mike in The Convict is more than adequate, however. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 30 September 2007 (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.