Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Payne


 * 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. (non-admin closure) treelo  radda  00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Payne

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. It only has a single award that is not enough to establish notability. Awards like that are generally covered in the main article. Without enough coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tyler Perry's House of Payne. Violates WP:NOT and WP:OR, both of which are very poor reasons for a WP:SPINOUT. As the actor got an award for this role, there is a certain notability, but the award can be (and already is) covered in the main article. No prejudice against recreation if someone wants to write a proper article on him with real-world information (casting, development, reception) that doesn't fit in the main article. – sgeureka t•c 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider a merge. The major character in a major series, so everything written about the series will discuss him also--there is no requirement for the works doing so to be primarily about him; the  details can of course be taken appropriately from the preferred RS for this, the work itself. And there is no reason why a single award if significant is not enough for notability--the assertion that it would not be is unsupported by policy or practice here. This article has an interesting history. It was first boldly redirected by the nominator, without prior discussion. Since it was the major character & I myself am   I reverted, the second step. According to WP policy this is to be followed by discussion on the talk page of the articles concerned; I myself am not familiar with the series and am going only by the articles involved.  The nom. ignored that, and brought it here instead. This is an outright abuse of the AfD process--rather than discuss a redirect on the place concerned, it is brought to a different place, to discuss deletion. Clear example of forum shopping. If i weren't too personally involved in these discussions, I would consider closing this as the wrong place for the discussion. DGG (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A few days ago, you disapproved of TTN "continu[ing] to nominate 5 to 10 articles for deletion without considering the possibility of merge or redirect". Now you say it's abuse to do an AfD even after his considering a merger+redirect. That isn't cool. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. – sgeureka t•c 17:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some form of discussion is generally a good idea, per WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * to follow, up, there is more than one way to do it wrong. After one  does something --any editing, not just a merge--and someone else reverts in good faith, the only proper course is to discuss. If one had known it would be controversial, I think it would have been better to discuss first, but if one thinks  that nobody will object, it's fine to be bold--I sometimes make bold redirects for articles myself. But once it is reverted or objected to, and one wishes to press the point, one needs to follow through with the third step, discuss. And the place to discuss is the talk page of the article. All the more so if one took the option of using BRD in a case where one ought to know it is not uncontroversial. There is a reason for BRD--it will at least provoke discussion from opponents. But one has to be willing to make the effort to have a good faith discussion oneself. When I've objected nominating for deletion without considering merge or delete, that means that if merge or delete is a realistic possibility and you do not want it, one should address it in the argument. If one did want it one shouldn't have brought it here to AfD at all. DGG (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major character, major series. Significant award to the actor for playing this character. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Given that there was a notable award given for the portrayal of the character keeping seems optimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do people ever actually think about weight when saying something like that? Do you really think that we need a unnecessary regurgitation of plot and original research just because the actor won a single award that fits right in the main article? TTN (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Major character in a notable sitcom, I'm not seeing any OR, it seems to be referenced to the show which is fine. Primary sources are obviously best for character back story. RMHED (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The character clearly establishes notability and the article isn't lacking in citations or content. UniversalBread (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect - This might be too little, too late, but I just don't see individual notability here. If there was an award for this character, wouldn't that go towards the notability of the actor, not the character? Any descriptions of the character come from episode guides, which aren't in-depth independent coverage. This should be redirected to the main series page.  TN ‑  X   - Man  15:48, 15 October 2008 (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.