Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Freeman (character)


 * 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Brooke Freeman (character)

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

Fails WP:FICTION, in that the article offers no real-world context, its only sources are the programme's official website, and much of the analysis appears to be Original Research dramatic (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

*Keep. Meets WP:N (two independent sources describing the character and her involvement in the plot of the show are linked in the article) so WP:FICT is irrelevant. JulesH (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep. The article contains two references and two external links it can draw from. OR can be edited out without intervention of AFD. If there are concerns about the idea of having a separate article, it can be merged into a list. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep. The article contains two references and two external links it can draw from. OR can be edited out without intervention of AFD. If there are concerns about the idea of having a separate article, it can be merged into a list. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These two references are in to plot summaries. They are not enough to establish notability. Unless you believe that a reference to a football team squad makes all the players notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I misinterpreted the linked articles as independent sources; they are not. TV2, the broadcaster of the show, is operated by TVNZ, the owner of the site in question. JulesH (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of sources available for this character:      etc. JulesH (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some good links here: . This is a reason to keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per JulesH excellent research. Ikip (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Throng is pretty marginal as a reliable source. The parts of it which are not user-contributed appear to be unedited reprints of media releases by the producers of programmes. I agree that some of the sources found are good, but in that case the article needs a full rewrite to focus on what those articles say rather than regurgitating plot. dramatic (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I just went through and copyedited and wikified a bit. I would be concerned if the show had a short page with little content, but it's reasonably lengthy and the the prose in this article flows. The references in the article already aren't bad and verify the content in the article. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 07:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:25, 11 February 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.