Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Campbell (Waterloo Road)


 * 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, defaulting to keep. One (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kim Campbell (Waterloo Road)

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

Fails WP:FICT, along with others in Category:Waterloo Road characters. No real-world information either featured or likely to be added. All are written from an in-universe perspective (other than the occassional nod to the actor saying if they're coming back or not). The JPS talk to me  15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What aload of bull this is. That article can only be worked on when something happens with the character - something i suspect JPS doesn't understand. He is only nominating it for delation because he doesn't like the fact that another user is disputing his actions for changig it. The article should not be deleted. Ignore JPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.148.178 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and be civil. The above editor is referring to my attempt to utilise the 'series' field in the template. However, as I was trying to fix the article I realised that it was ultimately pointless as they all fail our guidelines for inclusion. The JPS talk to me  15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge It's impossible to write an article about a fictional person without significant amounts of in-universe information included. It is a problem when in-universe material is presented as real. What is really the problem is the lack of independent third party sources to establish notability for a separate article. The source is fine to verify facts, so it could be merged somewhere instead of being included as a separate entry. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nothing can fail (or for that matter pass) WP:FICT because there is no agreement on what WP:FICT says. it would be nice if there were some, and we didn't have to do this every time. DGG (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep / Possibly Merge? The article may not be up to scratch in the sense it is not well written, sourced or referenced, but surely that could be rectified. It would be silly to write off the article and delete it entirely as the character in the long run is quite central to the show. Maybe if the article, and all individual character articles for Waterloo Road were to become merged into one article with a layout similar to the List of minor & recurring Waterloo Road characters article, it could be properlly maintained and worked on to standard Newtree21 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A merge, at best, might be OK. There's no way all of these dreadfully crufty fan articles that have absolutely no potential to come up to standard should remain as they are. None of them follow our guidelines about writing about fiction. Any merge should not simply be a copy and paste of all of this rubbish into one massive article, either. The JPS talk to me  15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think if someone were to take the time to bring them up to standard, they would be fine. To pass them off as having no potential and having them deleted seems to much of an easy way out. I would propose a merge of articles into, for example, two seperate article: Waterloo Road Current and Waterloo Road Past, with both articles in a similar layout as the List of minor & recurring Waterloo Road characters article. The an overhaul of the written content to bring it up to wiki standards Newtree21 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is it has no potential to be brought up to standard. There is no evidence of independent reliable sources. That seems to be the convention. We tend to accept lower standard articles on the likes of The Simpsons and Doctor Who because there are masses of RSs around, and a track record of editors systematically improving those articles up to standard. Where is the critical commentary or independent coverage about these individual characters that legitimate their articles? I haven't nominated this because it isn't up so standard: it is nominated because it never will be. Do a partial merge, but with significantly less detail, so that it doesn't violate WP:PLOT The JPS talk to me  17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the lack of real-world notability outside the context of the show. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 5 May 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.