Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenella


 * 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 as converted to disambig page. Agent 86 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fenella

 * — (View AfD)

There are no links to the page, and have not been since August at least, and the article of the book from where this character originates is a stub. Character not deserving of an article, should be included on a "List of Characters" page at most. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . The article is too short to be helpful. In my opinion, the corresponding book's page is too short to warrant even a List of Characters page. PullToOpen 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, even if the book's page is brought up to par, the book itself would have to become a lot more well-known before every minor character in it warrants a page here.--Dmz5 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nocontext, and even with context, still nn.  SkierRMH, 09:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete  The article gives no context to the character at all and sticks out like a sore thumb. Why create a seperate character page when the main article is a stub? No assertion of notability, absolutely no hint given that the character would need a seperate article at all. QuagmireDog 11:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 12:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and add the information to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire Flame (talk • contribs)

PAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO DAB AFTER ALL ABOVE VOTES New voting on dab replaced at 15:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) begins below.


 * Keep Useful. TonyTheTiger 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. dab is much better and more useful. --MPD01605 (T / C) 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as now useful disambig. Good work. QuagmireDog 09:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much better. PullToOpen 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per new page. Danny Lilithborne 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep agreed, the disambig looks fine now. --Krich (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2006 (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.