Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardino Esteves (character): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Bilodeauzx (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*'''Merge'' somewhere. I 'm not sure there's a good place at the moment, but judging from the main article the series is sufficiently notable culturally that there ought to be a page constructed for these characters. I agree with Protonk that we shouldn't leave these pages as they are in the hope of eventual sourcing, but that's no reason to remove the information entirely. Of the other arguments, "Pure trash" is pure IDONTLIKEIT, while the nomination is totally unspecific about what is wrong and how to fix it, being just the same a the nom for all sorts of other situations and problems. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Merge'' somewhere. I 'm not sure there's a good place at the moment, but judging from the main article the series is sufficiently notable culturally that there ought to be a page constructed for these characters. I agree with Protonk that we shouldn't leave these pages as they are in the hope of eventual sourcing, but that's no reason to remove the information entirely. Of the other arguments, "Pure trash" is pure IDONTLIKEIT, while the nomination is totally unspecific about what is wrong and how to fix it, being just the same a the nom for all sorts of other situations and problems. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' or '''merge''' per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--[[Special:Contributions/63.3.1.2|63.3.1.2]] ([[User talk:63.3.1.2|talk]]) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' or '''merge''' per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--[[Special:Contributions/63.3.1.2|63.3.1.2]] ([[User talk:63.3.1.2|talk]]) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. Here is my consensus. Also, user 63.3.1.2 is probably a sock of [[User:Arbiteroftruth]]. [[User:Bilodeauzx|Bilodeauzx]] ([[User talk:Bilodeauzx|talk]]) 05:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:22, 29 September 2008
- Bernardino Esteves (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge- Non-notable on its own, can be merged, though. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to the principal series page. Eusebeus (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- KeepnotableCdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - and improve. Hope you speak Porteguese, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge or Delete. The character isn't even mentioned in the series article, but I don't know whether that's a sign that he is not notable or that the article is merely incomplete. But the character article shouldn't exist if all it does is plot retelling. – sgeureka t•c 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge or just redirect There may be sources on the subject in portuguese. I don't think that we should wait around with an article that is entirely unsourced until both an editor who speaks portuguese shows up and those sources become available. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Article, pure trash is. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- 'Merge somewhere. I 'm not sure there's a good place at the moment, but judging from the main article the series is sufficiently notable culturally that there ought to be a page constructed for these characters. I agree with Protonk that we shouldn't leave these pages as they are in the hope of eventual sourcing, but that's no reason to remove the information entirely. Of the other arguments, "Pure trash" is pure IDONTLIKEIT, while the nomination is totally unspecific about what is wrong and how to fix it, being just the same a the nom for all sorts of other situations and problems. DGG (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Here is my consensus. Also, user 63.3.1.2 is probably a sock of User:Arbiteroftruth. Bilodeauzx (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)