Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loretta West


 * 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 and redirect as the information in the article has already (three days ago) been merged with and redirected to Characters in Outrageous Fortune. Continuing this discussion here is pointless. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Loretta West

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

Procedural nom. Contested prod. Unreferenced, in-universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. No evidence of notability. McWomble (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following duplicate article for the same reason: McWomble (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  18:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real world information, no third party sources. Fails notability. Tip for editors: Please replace the word "Biography" from these titles with "Character's background" (check Manual of Style (Writing about Fiction) for more information how to improve articles about fiction). -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that a duplicate article has been created without the AfD notice. For procedural completeness, I have added the notice and added this article to the nom as a related article. McWomble (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   — gadfium  23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a new article Characters in Outrageous Fortune, as suggested at Articles for deletion/Cheryl West.- gadfium 06:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * merge although a major character, the present article doesn't say enough to be worth keeping separate. Otherwise, same  as usual.DGG (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  17:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- non-notable -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete per Magioladitis. Clearly fails WP:FICT. 203.28.90.7 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * agreed, its not for a sepearate article, but what's the argument against merging? DGG (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect, not really seeing a reason to delete though. Notable and covered in reliable third-party sources. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Characters in Outrageous Fortune works for me, as outside that universe there is no notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons by Schmidt. There is no notability outside that universe. Just because the series is notable does not automatically make the characters, even major ones, notable too. Notability is not inherited. Outrageous Fortune is a notable series and is worthy of inclusion. The Simpsons is also a notable series and worthy of inclusion. No systematic bias here. But Loretta West is not notable in the same way that Troy McClure is notable. To 63.3.1.1, the sort of references in Troy McLure is what "covered in reliable third-party sources" means. Asserting it doesn't make it true. If there are reliable third party sources, add them. Notability is not about truth, it's about verifiability. We cannot verify your claim of notability and reliable sources without citations. This is the reason why this article should be deleted - notability not established, no reliable third party sources cited. QED. 203.30.75.12 (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - although I doubt anyone has written about it yet in a citeable manner, OF characters have taken on some out-of-universe presence, e.g. I've heard a radio DJ describe a person as a "bit of a Pascalle West", and although "munter" was already a jocular term of abuse before the series I'm certain its frequency of use has increased. dramatic (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - I don't understand why this AFD has been extended twice when its sibling articles have already been resolved and the merge has already taken place. Just close the thing please so we can legitimately change the article to a redirect! dramatic (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Educated guess as to why it was relisted twice (now 3 times). There was no concensus on whether to delete or merge. In the case of "no concensus" the outcome defaults to keep, which is quite clearly the one outcome nobody supports! 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and quit relisting already. No sources, in-universe. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, no real-world information, and lacking sources. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable outside the universe. Wikipedia policy is quite explicit that multiple independent reliable sources are required to prove notability. Mere assertion of notability and third party coverage in an AfD debate is not sufficient without actual citations backing this up. This article as it stands has no sources whatsoever therefore quite obviously fails the notability test. Deleting this article does not stop any reliably sourced information about the character being added to Characters in Outrageous Fortune in the future. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Of course no one wants a keep. I have changed the page to a redirect, since the target page has already been created (with much less unsourced content) . This means I removed the afd notice, so shoot me. If people want to carry on and delete the redirect, I guess they can, but I can forsee it being recreated as a redirect in the future once Characters in Outrageous Fortune is improved (which we can now spend some effort on instead of debating here. Obviously wikipedia editors don't buy the sort of magazines the coverage is in. What is required, of course, is the deletion of the duplicate page Outrageous_Fortune/Loretta_West, as such subpages have no place in article space. dramatic (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is partially original research, entirely unsourced and gives undue weight to a single character in a TV series that itself is not very important. Reyk  YO!  06:28, 1 October 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.