Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Elsie Thornton


 * 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. Wizardman 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Miss Elsie Thornton

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not only is this a minor fictional character that doesn't warrant an article, the article is unsourced and unreferenced. MovieMadness (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as non-notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Peyton Place from with it is linked. (Though I think this might one of those cases where it makes more sense for a non-notable topic to be its own article to avoid cluttering the main, notable article, but I don't think Wikipedia has a policy for that.) --Mdmkolbe (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merging with Peyton Place makes no sense, since far more substantial characters are not discussed at length. I believe delete is the best course of action. MovieMadness (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. That may be true about Peyton_Place_(novel), but Peyton_Place_(film) lists and discusses (in their own articles) the other characters at similar length. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: The other characters who have their own articles were far more significant to the plot than this one was. MovieMadness (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Maybe you are right, but without something or someone to back that up, such a claim is completely subjective, even if I agreed with you.  The only indication one way or another that I could find that isn't OR was that according to IMDB that role was first billed.  At least on the face of it, this indicates the role has a significance to the plot. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing but a plot summary. Do not see need to redirect, how many people are ever going to search this term. Ridernyc (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2007 (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.