Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Davenport


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lynn Davenport

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

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. F-a-n-c-r-u-f-t. . Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 14:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 14:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and/or merge. The character can be treated to the extent necessary (which is probably less extensive than she's treated in this article) in the parent article or an article collecting thumbnail sketches of its characters. Footnote 9 of WP:FAILN seems roughly on-point: "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'" - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a not notable fictional character. Sarah 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Home and Away or an appropriate chracter article. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable fictional character; no reliable sources. Generally agree with Simon Dodd here. Orderinchaos 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * merge  Lack of notability for a separate article, which i certainly grant, is no objection to a part in a merged article.  Any significant character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia  in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? DGG (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nomination statement at Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin. I'm not a fan of minor character lists, they often don't provide any additional context to any reader Matthewedwards : Chat  16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * sure they do. They at least tell the person who has entered the name what fiction it is. If done right, they give a sentence or paragraph of content-- in this case, the place in the family relationships. Easy, and should satisfy all. You may not be a fan of minor character lists, but that is straight IDONTLIKEIT. ?  I am not a fan of this fiction in the first place, but that doesn't  mean i want to delete the articles.  DGG (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True, true. What I mean is that minor often = not notable, and that many List of minor xxxxxxx characters could be merged into List of xxxxxxx characters. I'm actually okay with this being merged into List of Home and Away characters. She was a top-billed character anyway, if I remember correctly. Matthewedwards : Chat  08:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Either Keep until it can be thoroughly researched or merge with List of Home and Away characters (or possibly List of past Home and Away characters?).Skteosk (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. non-notable fictional character, no real-world significance.  –Moondyne 09:22, 14 July 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.