| Revision as of 21:10, 6 February 2009 editA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:13, 6 February 2009 edit undoA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits clarifiedNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ::*While it does indeed pass all three of those and should therefore not be deleted, regardless, a closing admin should be aware that this AfD is being "advertised" elsewhere and at least a few who have commented in it are taking part in both discussions. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | ::*While it does indeed pass all three of those and should therefore not be deleted, regardless, a closing admin should be aware that this AfD is being "advertised" elsewhere and at least a few who have commented in it are taking part in both discussions. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :*I nominated this article because it came up the the ], not to serve as a test case. That was someone else's idea. I believe many of the above comments were made before the discussion concerning the AFD began at ]. And finally, this article currently cites only the show itself as a source, so is currently a mile from meeting the general notability guideline. I've looked for sources, other's have looked for sources -- nada. If you've got 'em, let's see them. ] (]) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | :*I nominated this article because it came up the the ], not to serve as a test case. That was someone else's idea. I believe many of the above comments were made before the discussion concerning the AFD began at ]. And finally, this article currently cites only the show itself as a source, so is currently a mile from meeting the general notability guideline. I've looked for sources, other's have looked for sources -- nada. If you've got 'em, let's see them. ] (]) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::*The |
::*The calls to redirect were indeed made before the test case discussion, but not the deletes, which were made after it was listed there. I know that you did not list it there, but regardless it has been, which means that there is a reasonable chance that that discussion will influence this discussion. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:13, 6 February 2009
Valerie Gray
- Valerie Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article consists almost entirely of plot and character summary and contains no real world coverage or secondary sources. A redirect to List of villains and ghosts in Danny Phantom was reverted. Jfire (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect--what an amazing amount of words for something with no real-world notability at all. Troutslap for the reverter. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect. Although the DVD releases of the show make the references valid, the content includes a lot of assumptions rather than facts and it doesn't clarify what makes the character important in-universe either. - Mgm| 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, then proected redirect as no sources and no real world notability. I note that no attempt was made at the talk page to discus redirecting, so i'm not suprised it was reverted. AfD is not a substitute for discusion. However, this article comes nowhere near to showing notability, and from online searched i don'tthink it ever could. List article entry is enough for anon-notable fictional characterYobmod (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect No apparent notability or real-world information. The list of characters already has sufficient info, so no merger is necessary. – sgeureka 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, then create protected redirect: No secondary sourcing, no independent sourcing. Nothing seems to be available. Current article violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Nothing particularly salvageable in the current version, so merge is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: This discussion concerning an article that currently meets the general notability guideline is apparently being used as a test case for the proposed fictional notability guideline and thus seems to be more of an experimental discussion rather than reflective of normal consensus. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I can't speak for anyone else, but my reasoning was wholly based on WP:NOT#PLOT,WP:V and WP:N, not any experimental guideline.—Kww(talk) 21:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- While it does indeed pass all three of those and should therefore not be deleted, regardless, a closing admin should be aware that this AfD is being "advertised" elsewhere and at least a few who have commented in it are taking part in both discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I nominated this article because it came up the the notability backlog, not to serve as a test case. That was someone else's idea. I believe many of the above comments were made before the discussion concerning the AFD began at WP:FICT. And finally, this article currently cites only the show itself as a source, so is currently a mile from meeting the general notability guideline. I've looked for sources, other's have looked for sources -- nada. If you've got 'em, let's see them. Jfire (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The calls to redirect were indeed made before the test case discussion, but not the deletes, which were made after it was listed there. I know that you did not list it there, but regardless it has been, which means that there is a reasonable chance that that discussion will influence this discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)