This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Juliancolton (talk | contribs) at 13:40, 19 July 2009 (Relisting debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:40, 19 July 2009 by Juliancolton (talk | contribs) (Relisting debate)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)India Napier
- India Napier (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 baby born 3 weeks ago. delete. Jack Merridew 10:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Character has already received some coverage: , , , , (from - now deleted) As well as two articles in this week's newspapers:
- Bryan Patterson: "Close Up: Elouise Mignon", page 9, 12 July 2009. TV Guide supplement. The Sunday Telegraph.
- "What's On", page 7, 9 July, 2009. TV+ Supplement The Cairns Post.
Is it enough to warrant its own article? Maybe, but its probably more beneficial to Merge with List of Neighbours characters. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with List of Neighbours characters. Poltair (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Another minor, unreferenced character. –Moondyne 03:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to the appropraite character list. Edward321 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. If we go by the GNG, the presence of the articles that Matthew found are reason for a separate article, discussing not just the character but the attention paid to it--which is the oft-request RW information. Personally, I think it's better merged, as for all such characters. Matthew has it right: meeting the GNG does not compel an article--and inversely, not meeting it does not prevent one. DGG (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 13:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)