Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DGG (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 6 February 2009 (→Valerie Gray). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 and vice versa. Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable combination article. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. I suppose I am one of those at both discussions. From trying there, I see that WP:FICT is not showing much signs of consensus, and therefore at this point I believe there is no clear guideline for fictional elements at all, since there is also no consensus that the so-called GNG applies. We therefore have to go back to what makes sense, and what makes sense to me is the merge, including all content though copyediting for conciseness, as most such articles need. Apologies for the bold, but that's really the key point here--the content, not the separation into articles. The only reason I would actually want to keep this separate is because so many of the merges have been destructive.DGG (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)