Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loretta West: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:33, 26 September 2008

Loretta West

Procedural nom. Contested prod. Unreferenced, in-universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. No evidence of notability. McWomble (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following duplicate article for the same reason:

Outrageous Fortune/Loretta West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real world information, no third party sources. Fails notability. Tip for editors: Please replace the word "Biography" from these titles with "Character's background" (check Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction) for more information how to improve articles about fiction). -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that a duplicate article Outrageous Fortune/Loretta West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been created without the AfD notice. For procedural completeness, I have added the notice and added this article to the nom as a related article. McWomble (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article Characters in Outrageous Fortune, as suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl West.-gadfium 06:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge although a major character, the present article doesn't say enough to be worth keeping separate. Otherwise, same as usual.DGG (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 17:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non-notable -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Magioladitis. Clearly fails WP:FICT#Elements of fiction. 203.28.90.7 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, its not for a sepearate article, but what's the argument against merging? DGG (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, not really seeing a reason to delete though. Notable and covered in reliable third-party sources. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters in Outrageous Fortune works for me, as outside that universe there is no notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons by Schmidt. There is no notability outside that universe. Just because the series is notable does not automatically make the characters, even major ones, notable too. Notability is not inherited. Outrageous Fortune is a notable series and is worthy of inclusion. The Simpsons is also a notable series and worthy of inclusion. No systematic bias here. But Loretta West is not notable in the same way that Troy McClure is notable. To 63.3.1.1, the sort of references in Troy McLure is what "covered in reliable third-party sources" means. Asserting it doesn't make it true. If there are reliable third party sources, add them. Notability is not about truth, it's about verifiability. We cannot verify your claim of notability and reliable sources without citations. This is the reason why this article should be deleted - notability not established, no reliable third party sources cited. QED. 203.30.75.12 (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 *'''Merge''' and redirect, not really seeing a reason to delete though.  Notable and covered in reliable third-party sources. --[[Special:Contributions/63.3.1.1|63.3.1.1]] ([[User talk:63.3.1.1|talk]]) 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Merge''' to [[Characters in Outrageous Fortune]] works for me, as outside that universe there is no notability. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<b><sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup></b>]]'' 08:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per reasons by Schmidt. There is no notability outside that universe. Just because the series is notable does not automatically make the characters, even major ones, notable too. Notability is not inherited. [[Outrageous Fortune]] is a notable series and is worthy of inclusion. [[The Simpsons]] is also a notable series and worthy of inclusion. No systematic bias here. But Loretta West is not notable in the same way that [[Troy McClure]] is notable. To 63.3.1.1, the sort of references in [[Troy McLure]] is what "covered in reliable third-party sources" means. Asserting it doesn't make it true. If there are reliable third party sources, add them. Notability is not about truth, it's about verifiability. We cannot verify your claim of notability and reliable sources without citations. This is the reason why this article should be deleted - notability ''not'' established, no reliable third party sources cited. QED. [[Special:Contributions/203.30.75.12|203.30.75.12]] ([[User talk:203.30.75.12|talk]]) 08:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)