Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Mayfair
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect all. There is a clear consensus from this debate that the articles shouldn't exist. The delete arguments didn't show any adversity to being redirected, and hence I have redirected them all without deleting in case someone wants to use some of the content behind the redirects (can still be accessed in the
]Dylan Mayfair
- )
In-universe article (see
05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating these other Desperate Housewives character articles:[reply]- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- Lee McDermott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
My reasoning is pretty much the same as the thoughts I expressed at
WP:CRYSTAL issue, some of them are too minor to merit their own articles (such as Travers, Phyllis, Justin, Kayla, Parker, Porter & Preston, and Ida), and none of them really attempt to establish notability by presenting real-world context--probably because most of them don't really have any. We'd be better off, IMHO, without so many of these individual, in-universe articles, and with an improved single character list. Note that some of the other character articles may be worthy of deletion as well; I just nominated these for now because they're the ones I'm pretty sure of (I didn't nominate any of the "major" starring characters). --CrazyLegsKC 05:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Redirect all to List of Desperate Housewives characters. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think {{merge}} should have been used instead of going to AfD. (I am unfamiliar with the show about these characters' notability. I'd lean to merge but the character list is already >50kB and would either need trimming or an encyclopedic split-up – an editorial issue outside the scope of AfD). – sgeureka t•c 08:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/redirect/merge Since editors propose to reorganise this material, it is not appropriate to delete them. Colonel Warden 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as articles have no notability of these fictional characters outside of the televison show. --Gavin Collins 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Gavin. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Gavin. --Fredrick day 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your rationale for deleting all of these characters instead of just saying you agree with someone. This looks like sock puppetry although I have no proof. Please see WP:JUSTAVOTE to see why I am saying your votes currently have little value in this discussion. Canjth 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your rationale for deleting all of these characters instead of just saying you agree with someone. This looks like sock puppetry although I have no proof. Please see
- Delete all as failing to establish that they have any coverage beyond the show. Nuttah68 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So if the new characters like Bob and Lee establish themselves to be important characters, would their articles be recreated? Also, they've garnered some press for being the first gay couple on Wisteria Lane, so I don't know if that makes them notable enough or not. --Silvestris 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect brief summaries to List of Desperate Housewives characters. They can be split off again if they demonstrate greater notability. — RJH (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, no indication of notability per significant coverage from secondary sources per WP:FICT. Unlikely such sources exist for minor characters. Doctorfluffy 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, no individual notability. Axem Titanium 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/redirect/merge all to Benjiboi 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to list article per ]
- Comment. Please see Benjiboi 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Benjiboi 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
- Keep Austin McCann (Desperate Housewives). Timeineurope 12:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Are you people crazy????? I am so not gonna donate anything here if this actually happens. These are lovable characters of alovable show, and someone (incl. myself) made the effort to create all these pages. DO NOT DELETE! friendoffelix 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Fancruft that fails )
- Strong Keep Some of these characters play/have played a really important part in the show! Felicia Tilman been extremely notable & main characters!--Hiltonhampton 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in the show, perhaps, but not notable in the real world. Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia, not a fan site. --CrazyLegsKC 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you haven't noticed, but real people in the real world watch the show!--Hiltonhampton 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that by itself doesn't make all these characters notable. Real people also watch Guiding Light, but that doesn't mean we need a separate article for each one of the hundreds (possibly thousands?) of characters it has had since it started. --CrazyLegsKC 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do it for soap operas! think of all the hundreds of characters in Coronation Street that may have never even had a scene, but still they all have pages.--Hiltonhampton 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that by itself doesn't make all these characters notable. Real people also watch Guiding Light, but that doesn't mean we need a separate article for each one of the hundreds (possibly thousands?) of characters it has had since it started. --CrazyLegsKC 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you haven't noticed, but real people in the real world watch the show!--Hiltonhampton 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in the show, perhaps, but not notable in the real world. Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia, not a fan site. --CrazyLegsKC 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse. If the Coronation Street character pages should be deleted or merged, then let's get them deleted or merged. Don't use them as an alibi for more wrong articles. Otto4711 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No you're getting the wrong end of the stick. I see theses as good articles!--Hiltonhampton 21:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though I am a pretty major fan of DH, I agree that some of these charcters should not have articles, because they have been basent from the show for a long time, had limited roles and will not come back, like Noah Taylor (Desperate Housewives). Don't forget that there may still be people who watch the first seasons of DH for the first time so Wikipedia should provide them with information about these characters. I think that no articles should be bulk deleted before a serious discussion has been done to determine which articles to delete and which to keep. Canjth 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how important they are within the show if they don't have secondary sources providing out-of-universe context. --CrazyLegsKC 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we follow your reaoning, Bree Hodge or Lynette Scavo have any "out of universe" context. Please explain why the entire list of articles tht are proposed for deletion here should be bulk deleted but not all the others. I'm not saying these articles should all be kept, I'm just saying they should not be bulk deleted without discussion specific to each character article. Canjth 13:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said in my nomination, I just nominated these for now because they're the ones that I'm most sure are worthy of deletion. I refrained from nominating any of the starring characters for now because they're more likely to have out-of-universe context, even if it hasn't been shown yet. (Such as from interviews, DVD commentaries, etc.) However, if context and notability is not demonstrated for those characters in the future--yes, they probably should be deleted/merged, in spite of being starring roles. Read WP:FICT—"notability" for fictional subjects means having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just playing an important part within the plot of the work itself. --CrazyLegsKC 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said in my nomination, I just nominated these for now because they're the ones that I'm most sure are worthy of deletion. I refrained from nominating any of the starring characters for now because they're more likely to have out-of-universe context, even if it hasn't been shown yet. (Such as from interviews, DVD commentaries, etc.) However, if context and notability is not demonstrated for those characters in the future--yes, they probably should be deleted/merged, in spite of being starring roles. Read
- If we follow your reaoning,
- Keep Not wishing to resort to the Pokémon test, but we have worse than this on Wikipedia. No evidence that all these characters fail WP:FICT. Each case should be analyzed separately, a mass nomination is probably not adequate for them. Húsönd 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also no evidence that any of them pass ]
- These characters may not be important now, but they were still there and you should keep them.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.