Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrienne Warshawski


 * 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   Delete  Nakon  05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Adrienne Warshawski

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 08:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

''You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.'' Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 08:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 08:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious merge into List of Honorverse characters, which was created for this type of small articles. Debresser (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge proposed and ready to carry out. Debresser (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See: Guide to deletion especially:
 * Merge any relevant content to List of Honorverse characters, as standard practice for non-notable characters in notable works would suggest. JulesH (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to merge in here. The character can be described with one line, something that is already done in the list. In fact the list has more than 100 characters and in order not to rewrite the plot of the books I think some small descriptions are ok and welcome. Some bigger descriptions can be done for main characters. Full descriptions won't help, since the main elements of the plot are already in the books. Moreover, we don't need a reedirect for every single character of every book. It's like creating a redirect for every single footballer. I think deletion is the best option for this one and some more of the same. Better invest some time to improve the list itself than havving all these articles around. --Magioladitis (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this non-notable content fork on the relevant plot summaries. Don't merge anything. One great big pile of unsourced fictional trivia is not better than a bunch of smaller piles. They can take it all to the Honorverse wiki if it's not already there.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- she isn't a character, she's backstory. Could be dealt with in one line at a "tech of Honorverse" article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * merge the appropriate amount.    As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters in background, combination articles preserving content are the way to go.  Saying background characters are not fit content even merged is against the principle of having a comprehensive encyclopedia. Being able to cover the backstory is something very appropriate for a reference work like this.    I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. DGG (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment see my comment to a similar post of yours on Articles for deletion/Elaine Komandorski. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * as I said there, if you want to delete not merge you are losing content which can be reliably sourced to the primary source, which is just what;s appropriate for this; and the individual paragraphs of content in a combined article dont have to be notable, or we'd have a wp article for every paragraph here. We do better to keep them together in reasonable combined articles. I reallhy don;t know why you find this a strange concept. DGG (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the comments offered above, especially those of Magioladitis which I agree with. Eusebeus (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have to do the Pokémon test and see if this is worth keeping. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to List_of_Honorverse_characters. --EEMIV (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.