Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Zilwicki


 * 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   Merge to List of Honorverse Characters. Nakon 05:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Helen Zilwicki

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

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 06:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking nom's double vote. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unstruck; it's quite clear; do not be disruptive. Jack Merridew 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Jack Merridew 06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 06:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge useful content to List of Honorverse Characters per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Jclemens. We don't delete articles about characters in highly notable works like this one; if they aren't independently notable enough for an article we merge them.  That's standard practice, and I don't see why an AFD is needed for this one, which is a pretty clear case. JulesH (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. I';d support the merge, probably. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters, combination articles preserving content are the way to go.  The only real problem  is that  the combination articles may then be deleted--as is currently being attempted at Articles for deletion/Treecat, and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names.   I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition.DGG (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment see my comment to a similar post of yours on Articles for deletion/Elaine Komandorski. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete fictional character with insufficient independent coverage to sufficiently establish notabilty outside of the context of the work of fiction the character inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- a merge is not the way to go because this person is already mentioned in sufficient depth at the proposed target article, and there is no sourced and encyclopedic content to be salvaged. Reyk  YO!  22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the list of characters, as is a central character in a series of novels (Heirs of Saganami) 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a purely in-universe article with no claim to real-world significance or notability. Eusebeus (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A character found in multiple books, which played a major part in at least one of them.  D r e a m Focus  04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Honorverse characters Edward321 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List_of_Honorverse_characters. --EEMIV (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:52, 22 April 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.