Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Frye


 * 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 Tanisha Lynn. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Danielle Frye

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This character has no significant storylines, background, relevance, or impact on culture. To determine this character's meets of general notability, I tried searching this character's name, including Reed, but no significant coverages of this character were found, including news and books. Also, this character lasted for about two years, and suddenly, the only coverages she had are trivial, including reports of this role's portrayer, Tanisha Lynn. Also, this article consists of only fictional background, which violates "What Wikipedia is not". I could not find receptions of this character from non-primary authentic sources. This article was previously proposed for deletion; even after removal of PROD, there have been no efforts to balance reality and fiction. George Ho (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Actress Tanisha Lynn where her being "known" for this role is already mentioned. Lacks notability for a separate article. While the character is listed in soap-related websites such Soapdom, and Soap Central, the reliable source cover the character only in passing when speaking about the actress who portrayed her: G-News   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Good point. I can't find any way to rebute this proposal of yours. However, is this page worth merging or redirecting? Is this page worth the risk of future IP reverts? "Lily Montgomery" was fortunately deleted as a result of AfD; it became resurrected as a violation of deletion result per G4. I think: if this article is deleted, then it is rather worth a wait until this article is re-created under violation of deletion result than worth preserving as a result of redirect or merge. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Always difficult to predict the future. I suggest the redirect because the name is a reasonable serch term for anyone who wishes to know about this character... and in the character lacking notability for a separate article, the actress' article is the better pace to contain some relevent information for our readers.  If IPs revert, it can be protected. As for the page history (and again it's the unwritten future), soaps have the habit of bringing even dead characters back to life... and too, even minor soap characters can often become the subject of later study and analysis in books. So if in the future this were able to be far better sourced, the history would allow the article to be returned and improved. Of course, even if deleted... admins can restore page and history if requested and justified. WP:REFUND  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DELREV, fortunately, if you want to contest the deletion of Lily Montgomery. Anyway, how will this character be the subject of non-primary significant coverages? In accordance with her storylines, the only possibilities are journals of violence and victims of violence, and I'm not too keen to see the academists use this character as part of their own examples. There are bunch of fictional characters who suffer from violence, and this character may have no chance to be researched because... no one is familiar with this character at all, All My Children is dead, and episodes of this show without Erica Kane and her relatives will never be researched in the future because ABC has made no efforts to release them subsequentially... unless I'm biased. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind: this topic and the actress are two separate people, and they may not be the same, in spite of their similar depictions. What are examples of character pages that have been redirected to the actual people? --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What happened at the deleted Lily Montgomery was a different discussion... and User:DGG's comment toward its potential was cogent... there. I am not rehashing that other AFD. In many actor srticles there is sourced discussion of roles for which they have sourcable notability... even if we lack an article on that particular character. The actress and her character are not two diverse and "seperate" topics... they are intertwinned and sourcably inter-related. If a character lacks notability for a separate article, it makes sense to send our readers to a place within Wikipedia where the character may be spoken of and sourced in context to the actor who portrayed the character. In this case, and while the character lacks sourcable notability, the actress does not. As searches for the character find RS discussion of the actresss in context to the character, to me it is sensible to send our readers to the one place where it is logical to have the character mentioned in relationship to the actress.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Intertwined and sourcably inter-related? Hmm... ....... True, the actress portrayed this character... ...I'm running out of non-ranting words to say... ...It may be sensible... The idea of yours is too strong for me to battle... Is there evidence that two are the same, aside from the fact that two people appear similar and that this actress portrayed this character? Are there two separate or similar personalities between both of them? David Canary and Adam Chandler are two separate people, despite their similar depictions, unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your example seems to be making my point. The character article mentions the actor and the actor article mentions the character. Had the character article not had enough notability for a separate article, our redirecting readers to the actor article where the character is spoken of in context acts to increase a reader's understanding of the topic... both topics actually.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, if this article is resulted as redirected to the actress's bio, then I must watch either or both of them to wait for IP vandals. You have good points, and it is more reasonable than redirecting to "List of..." --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 06:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Actress Tanisha Lynn. Insufficient RS coverage for a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (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.