Talk:Zack Martin (Suite Life)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC) There's no reason to delete it at all. There are pages for Cody Martin, Carey Martin, London Tipton, Mr. Moseby, and a lot of other fictional characters from other TV Shows, like Miley Stewart from Hannah Montana, and Alex Russo from Wizards of Waverly Place. Just because some people think it's not notable, doesn't mean it should be deleted. I can understand (though still disagree) making Bailey Pickett a redirect because she's a main character, but not the main character, but Zack and Cody are both the main characters of the series. Many tv shows have many main characters in which neither of them are the central character of the series, like many soap operas. But those characters still have their pages. The Zack Martin page had been around for years, so why would someone just now think that it's not notable?

And if Zack Martin has to be deleted, at least make it a redirect like what was done with Bailey Pickett and Maddie Fitzpatrick.

If this is because the page Zack Martin already exists, then the reason is that it's not the same, that page is about an American Football Player.

All I'm saying is that Zack and Cody are both the main characters of the series. It wouldn't make sense for Cody's page to exist but not Zack's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasemjohnson (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(I'm the person who placed the CSD template) I do agree that redirection is a better option, for I don't think it should really have been fully deleted ever (my !vote in the first deletion nomination was to merge (if keep/rescue was not feasible)). But a character does have to meet certain standards to be here, just because other stuff exists that's not a reason to keep every character article--even if they're a main character. This article needs more real-world perspective and assertion of exactly why he's notable, and it probably would have been better to draft a new version in userspace, draft space, or even AfC (dunno if that last one's allowed for recreations) instead of being reposted rather identically here. Consensus in the last deletion discussion was to delete, but it was not for Cody's. That's why one exists and not the other. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I do not agree with this policy, but I understand. Maybe I should have just made this a redirect as opposed to creating a whole new page. And I'm glad you agree with me on that. I just felt that including Cody but not Zack made no sense to me, and I also felt irritated that all the pages that linked to Zack Martin were directed to the wrong page. I would have made a review to whoever deleted the page, but after it was deleted, it was moved to a different page, so I didn't know who. Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see this is not the same as the Zack Martin that was deleted. Zack Martin was different to Cody Martin, which wasn't nominated a second time as Zack Martin was. This has been rewritten from Cody Martin and contains references that didn't exist in the article that was deleted. Personally, I don't agree with the deletion at the 2nd nomination either. The first AfD was attended by 7 editors with the only "delete" being the nominator, even after 20 days. The second AfD was an "I don't like it" nomination that lasted just 7 and received only 4 delete votes including the nomination. That really can't override the consensus of the previous AfD, which ended less than 3 weeks previously. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)