Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlie Hoyland: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:23, 12 July 2009 editMatthewedwards (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users26,824 edits delete← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:02, 26 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
			<!--Template:Afd top

			Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

			The result was '''delete'''. –''']''' \| ] 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
	===]===		===]===
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|F}}

	:{{la\|Charlie Hoyland}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>		:{{la\|Charlie Hoyland}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Line 8:		Line 14:
	*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ] 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)</small>		*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ] 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)</small>

	* '''Delete''' A long and detailed ] ] / character biography that only a ] would be interested in. It cannot be re-written to meet ] or ] as the subject has not received ] coverage in ] ] sources, so cannot satisfy the ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)		* '''Delete''' A long and detailed ] ] / character biography that only a ] would be interested in. It cannot be re-written to meet ] or ] as the subject has not received ] coverage in ] ] sources, so cannot satisfy the ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''' per ], the article is unsourced and unlikely to be reliably sourced. Best suited for a Neighbours wiki or fansite. I am not generally a big fan of the word "cruft" as its definition seems to be "detail that I don't like" but in this case the article '''is''' clearly fancruft. -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Delete'''. Minor character; no real-world significance. –] 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Merge''' to an appropriate character list. ] (]) 12:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
			*'''merge''' afggre that it is not possibly worth a separate article--that is no reason why there should not by a paragraph in a merged article, and a redirect. There is no rational argument against a redirect. I notice none of the people above seem to disagree--all they have done is argued, very correctly, that it should not be a full article. ''']''' (]) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''' character page without potential for real-world context. ]] 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 12:02, 26 May 2022

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. –Juliancolton | 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Hoyland

might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. a fictional kid of various fictional ages due to being afflicted with Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome. delete. Jack Merridew 12:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete A long and detailed plot summary / character biography that only a dedicated fan would be interested in. It cannot be re-written to meet WikiProject Soap Opera's notability standards for characters or WP:Notability as the subject has not received real-world coverage in reliable independent sources, so cannot satisfy the inclusion criteria. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V, the article is unsourced and unlikely to be reliably sourced. Best suited for a Neighbours wiki or fansite. I am not generally a big fan of the word "cruft" as its definition seems to be "detail that I don't like" but in this case the article is clearly fancruft. -- Mattinbgn\ 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Minor character; no real-world significance. –Moondyne 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
merge afggre that it is not possibly worth a separate article--that is no reason why there should not by a paragraph in a merged article, and a redirect. There is no rational argument against a redirect. I notice none of the people above seem to disagree--all they have done is argued, very correctly, that it should not be a full article. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete character page without potential for real-world context. The JPS 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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.