Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Nelson


 * 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   no consensus. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Emma Nelson

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete & redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. The character isn't notable per guidelines to warrant an individual article. RMHED (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and relevant information into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters or the actor/actress's main article.  iMa tth ew (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep major characters should have an article. The understanding of the topic is helped by some recapitulation of the plot, which can, of course, be sourced from the work itself. I see no OR. The series is composed of the characters & plot, and the N is composite, and  not distinguishable--the GNG is not rationally applicable to fictional characters, and there isn't any agreed alternative, but common sense would suggest at least to me that merge is appropriate for minor, but not major characters to prevent the article from being unwieldy. It's really just a format question, though. Even If one does not want to do this, then an extended discussion of the characters should be merged into the list--devoting similar space to minor and major characters is not rational article writing. But in any case, a redirect from the names of at least major characters is essential. Hence, I think nominating multiple articles of this sort when merging or redirection would do is excessive, and, when carried out in bulk this way, I suggest should be viewed as disruptive. My opinion. And my apology for copying this into the other delete proposals for the major characters, but the exact same argument applies. DGG (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge anything in the article that is cited and backed up into the list. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The main character of an award-winning television series. Candyo32 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge anything of worth into a/the List of characters. Completely unsourced, article is a fine example of what wikipedia is not for (WP:NOT). – sgeureka t•c 16:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Main character from major Canadian show with a large number of featured article/lists. It will be gotten to eventually.  Also, if our policies and guidelines lead to the conclusion that an article viewed 20,000 times a month is unfit for WP, then it's time to change them, not delete this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 21 September 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.