| Revision as of 12:52, 14 July 2009 editEdward321 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users36,434 edits →Charlie Hoyland← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:27, 16 July 2009 edit undoDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits →Charlie HoylandNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Minor character; no real-world significance. –] 03:27, 14 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''' 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) | |||
Revision as of 21:27, 16 July 2009
Charlie Hoyland
- Charlie Hoyland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
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)