Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Drummond (character)


 * 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 Diff'rent Strokes. A new List of Diff'rent Strokes characters may also be created – sgeureka t•c 10:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kimberly Drummond (character)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Alongside Phillip Drummond (character), Arnold Jackson (character), Willis Jackson (character) these articles should either be deleted or merged. The actors who portray the characters are be notable, but there is insufficient that there is enough third person information to justify an article for the characters they portrayed. If enough analysis from books or newspaper articles which talk about the characters NOT the actors who portray them can be found I would be willing to withdrawn my nomination. At worst these article should be deleted at best merged. Please consider notability is WP:NOTINHERITED,WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:NOHARM are not valid arguments to keep these articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: There's no question that Different Strokes was a highly notable series, I don't see an issue with having these separate articles about the key characters, that seems pretty standard on Wikipedia to the extent I've come across it. E.g, Gilligan (Gilligan's Island), Alex P. Keaton.  (Don't hit me with ITEXISTS, my point is valid under that, the existence of such articles is worth considering as an indication of community consensus).  Previous similar AfDs like Articles for deletion/Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati) and Articles for deletion/Bailey Quarters have resulted in keeps.  Now, if this was a minor short-lived series, e.g., say an article on the lead Matthew Burton character in It's Your Move, or a minor character on the major show, I'd say you'd have a valid argument.  But as a matter of organizational preference, the way this show is done, considering its importance, is fine by me.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to whether an article should be kept or deleted is not a valid argument. It is also irrelevant whether the character was part of a popular or short lived television. The question is there verifiable independent information which discusses in depth about the character. Also the characters you used in argument Milowent,Alex P. Keaton,Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati),Bailey Quarters and Gilligan (Gilligan's Island) in all the instances viable third person information has been found discussing each character article in depth. You have so far failed to produce one reliable source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to whether an article should be kept or deleted is not a valid argument." WRONG.  Did I not tell you not to make that argument?  As the cited essay says "It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency."  I am very concerned that you do not understand OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  So, instead of telling me to find sources, please outline how you followed WP:BEFORE before making your nominations.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge Though we do not follow precedent exactly, consistency is a desirable goal. (Even consistency in a direction one might not prefer is better than random inclusion). This character is not Yoda, a key character in a famous fiction, but neither is she an insignificant character in a fiction that is only borderline notable.The compromise position for such cases is merging; there is no reason to completely remove the information, as it is reasonable that someone might look here for the identification of any named character in a well-known work.  DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 2 February 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 ) 01:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per DGG. And add this information to Diff'rent_Strokes SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 17:48, 11 February 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.