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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:00, 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]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *'''Delete''' per Magioladitis. Clearly fails [[WP:FICT#Elements of fiction]]. [[Special:Contributions/203.28.90.7|203.28.90.7]] ([[User talk:203.28.90.7|talk]]) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 ::agreed, its not for a sepearate article, but what's the argument against merging? '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
+*'''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)