Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:07, 6 April 2009

Rebecca Hendrix

Rebecca Hendrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Extremely unnotable minor fictional character from Law & Order SVU; appeared in maybe five episodes. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Too minor for mentioning in character list; only needs listening in episode lists, which is already there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The article fails WP:Plot and WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Law & Order SVU as plausible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nothing but plot summary with no encyclopedic content as required by WP:NOT: Misplaced Pages covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. The subject of the article also fails WP:N as there are no reliable, independant sources that examine the specific character apart from the television series. ThemFromSpace 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as above, then redirect for search purposes. G'day, Jack Merridew 11:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  struck suggested redirect; there are other hits on this name, such as http://www.rebeccahendrix.com/ — G'day, Jack Merridew 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Character not notable enough and this literally just a plot summary. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: User:A Nobody is attempting to "save" the article by merging it without discussion to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, however considering the extremely minor nature of this character, such a merge is not appropriate as character lists do not include such characters. After it was reverted, he started a discussion, but did so at the talk page instead of just noting so here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I saw that, but those "merges" are literally just name drops, so I left it. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Well, if we could merge all the characters that have articles on them to that list, that would be better than having individual articles. We just have to make sure the list itself is notable and has a substantial lead to show that. ThemFromSpace 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've done some already, but Hendrix is too minor for even mentioning in the list. Some others, particularly Benson, Stabler, and Munch, are notable enough for standalone articles, but they need some serious work. (the OR...man the OR). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Which is part of a larger pattern of such disruption.

  Note the following from Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, which is linked to from {{AfD}};

  • You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.

  Nakal anak. G'day, Jack Merridew 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for the following reasons:

1. Enough information about the character to fill an article.
2. If you aren't interested in the article, you aren't likely to ever find it, unless you are specifically looking for things to delete(a rather horrible hobby to have).
3. There is no shortage of space on wikipedia, so no reason to delete something just because you don't like it. Some people will find the information interesting to read.
4. The notability guidelines are suggestions, not policy. You don't have to follow them, and shouldn't just use them as an excuse to delete something you don't like, for whatever reason.

Dream Focus 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is policy to delete something that doesn't fit in with the notability guidelines. See WP:DEL#REASON. Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to...Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Nobody said anything about not liking this material. We're just trying to build a better encyclopedia, and that includes enforcing our standards. ThemFromSpace 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a reason to delete, not a rule saying you have to delete. Just a reason to nominate something for deletion, or consider it for deletion. It all goes down to consensus, which means the opinions of whoever is around at the time to post their opinions. And you are trying to build what you consider a better encyclopedia, not what many people would consider better. Since there has never been an actual vote by wikipedia users, no one can say what most people would prefer it to become. Dream Focus 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think consensus is clear here that while they arent perfect, the notability guidelines are the best tool for the job of keeping Misplaced Pages a discriminate encyclopedia. I refer you to the recent RfCs on notability. ThemFromSpace 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Merge about one or two paragraphs of this. There needs to be enough to identify her role, not tell the whole plot of each episode she was engaged in.,complete with detailed lines of dialog. Her role is not that important that it mattes exactly what she said to whom The problem is not a question of keep or delete. The problem is how much content is appropriate on a topic,with the secondary problem of where to put it. This content is too much. The GNG notability guidelines are useless for fiction characters, because they only deal with what is worth a separate article, which is not the problem here or in most fiction questions at AfD. This much would be wrong as a separate article or merged, & it doesnt make the least real difference which, it's a content question. Not having something would be equally wrong, In a sense, that's an afd question: since merge is considered a form of keep, the only justification for delete is if you think there should be no mention of her at all in Misplaced Pages. If there should, it would be a merge or a redirect, but not a delete. Does the nominator actually think there should be no mention? DGG (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the nominator does. 5 episodes out over over 200 is not worth mentioning in neither the main article nor the character list. Her appearances area already properly mentioned in the specific episode summaries. Nothing else to say. And no, deletion does not mean there should be no mention at all, it means she does not need her own article nor does her article need to be redirected anywhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect, as long as this article isn't kept. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT, the Reception section is extremely trivial, and there is nothing to merge (except excessive plot, where trimming needs longer than coming up with five original sentences to describe her plot arc). – sgeureka 10:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates