Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Austin (Home and Away)


 * 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 to Home and Away. Ambivalent on target - material is in history for the merge Fritzpoll (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Austin (Home and Away)

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

Non notable outside the show its on. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --  treelo  radda  16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect or delete There are 144 characters in Category:Home and Away characters, one article worse than the other. Instead of just deleting this article here and be done with it, the whole bunch of character articles should be considered for a merger into lists, regardless of notability, until notability is established. – sgeureka t•c 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge then delete as unlikely seach term. Rinse and repeat per sgeureka's suggestion. Sarilox (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a trout slap. Deletions aren't compatible with mergers. Besides, assuming there are more people called Brendan Austin and assuming the existence of a dab page, the article title would make for a very plausible redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect A lack of notability independent from a TV show means it shouldn't be covered independently. But the nominator didn't show it shouldn't be covered altogether. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge but preserve material I agree with Sgeureka that we should not be doing this one at a time, nor should we necessarily let one sample character that might be atypical go as a precedent. (I'm not going to work on a show I've never seen, but  I get the feeling from the article that there's going to be comment from advocacy groups about this one which will give him at any rate some context.)   I also agree the article can not possibly stand on its own.   These  series can often be comprehended best through articles divided by characters, not by episode- and for this a sentence or so in a large combined list is unacceptably brief. So it should be a real merge.    DGG (talk) 03:11, 18 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.