Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Knight (2nd nomination)


 * 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 / redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Owen Knight
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A fictional character in a long standing soap opera with no real world information. Article consists 99% of plot. No references of third party sources (in fact no references at all). Article created before character appears in the show (see WP:RECENTISM. Fails notability (see also WP:FICTION). The only facts worth are already in wikipedia in List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters. No reason to create another article just to put unverifiable, unreferenced plot summaries, minor than these appearing in the B&B storylines.Article was deleted in June 8 and recreated some days later with the same content. Unfortunately, I discovered that after nomination for Afd. Maybe db-repost could apply as well back in July. Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Magioladitis (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a combination article The existence of a separate article is not justified, but a combination one is. The existing list that the nom. mentions is a bare listing giving the name of the character and the actor, without the slightest mention of the role in the story. This is not adequate information. In a sense this argument is moot, because regardless of the decision here --even a G4--there is no reason not to add information to the list, or to make a combination article for recurring characters. It's a pity content disputes end up here. Plot summaries are of course verifiable and referenceable from the primary work,so the objections of the nom to a combination article does not hold. At worst, this should be a redirect, and the nomination mentions no reason why not to do it. The last few weeks has seen a significant unwarranted change in the purpose of AfD--instead of discussing whether to delete articles, we are discussing whether the merge or redirect them. According to policy, this is not the right place. DGG (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we have a redirect for every character that appears in the show? Moreover, this article was deleted and recreated against consensus, with the content, a week after its deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete--non-notable, and incredibly wordy. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (Delete and/or) redirect Nonnotable and unduely plot-heavy. Redirection still allows interested editors to merge (although its easier to just come up with something new and shorter) but also actively discourages recreation for ooh-a-redlink newbies. – sgeureka t•c 07:52, 15 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.