| Revision as of 08:45, 16 April 2009 editGonzonoir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Rollbackers13,723 edits Merge← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:04, 16 April 2009 edit undoDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits mergeNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Merge to ]''': I ran the three synonyms through Google Scholar and Books in search of ]. The first has no hits, the second gives a link only to one of the novels in which she appears, the third returns hits for a different character in a novel by ]. A for the main name, minus overt Misplaced Pages mirror sites, also returns nothing in the way of ]. Therefore notability is not established and an independent article not merited. ] (]) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Merge to ]''': I ran the three synonyms through Google Scholar and Books in search of ]. The first has no hits, the second gives a link only to one of the novels in which she appears, the third returns hits for a different character in a novel by ]. A for the main name, minus overt Misplaced Pages mirror sites, also returns nothing in the way of ]. Therefore notability is not established and an independent article not merited. ] (]) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| '''Keep''', and ''then'' discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. I'd support the merge, almost certainly, at the right place. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters, combination articles preserving content are the way to go. The only real problem is that the combination articles may then be deleted--as is currently being attempted at ], and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. ''']''' (]) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:04, 16 April 2009
Elaine Komandorski
- Elaine Komandorski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Honorverse characters: I ran the three synonyms through Google Scholar and Books in search of notability. The first has no hits, the second gives a link only to one of the novels in which she appears, the third returns hits for a different character in a novel by another author. A broader web search for the main name, minus overt Misplaced Pages mirror sites, also returns nothing in the way of reliable sources. Therefore notability is not established and an independent article not merited. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. I'd support the merge, almost certainly, at the right place. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters, combination articles preserving content are the way to go. The only real problem is that the combination articles may then be deleted--as is currently being attempted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Treecat, and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. DGG (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Categories: