Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serena van der Woodsen


 * 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 keep. John254 00:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Serena van der Woodsen

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

I fail to see how any of these characters have any out-of-universe notability. All of this is just plot summary with original research, and all of the important details are already covered in Gossip Girl anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. I don't watch this programme, but everything seems in order. I hate to break WP:WAX, but Doctor Who has articles for pretty much all of its characters. So does Friends. I feel WP:IDONTLIKEIT may be the motivation behind this nomination. Dalejenkins | 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not my motivation at all. My motivation is WP:V and WP:RS with a dash of WP:CRUFT and a sprig of parsley. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I hate to break WP:WAX, but articles such as Rose Tyler have been around since 2004. No out-of-universe notability, and about 90% of the sources in the article are primary, and no such debate has started about this. Rachel Green, Monica Gellar, Ross Gellar, Phoebe Buffay, Chandler Bing and Phoebe Buffay are of the same state (the lack of out-of-universe notability, and coverage in reliable sources). Dalejenkins | 22:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then they should, most likely, be deleted or merged as well. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination fails to provide any evidence to support its vague suppositions nor considers any alternatives such as merger or redirection per WP:BEFORE. Searches indicate that the character is, in fact, notable, as one would expect. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see anything that's worth merging, so I skipped over that; most of this is in-universe plot summary which would've been redundant. The main article already summarizes each character. All I'm finding is gossip and blogs (not reliable sources). Show me something that proves they're notable out-of-universe and I'll reconsider. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As bad as these articles may be per WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:WAF (i.e. I wouldn't mind seeing them deleted), it is often easier to make a decision about such articles that can become GAs one day when they have been "warned" through notability templates or merge/redirect proposals for a while. Even then, you wouldn't get more than a redirect from me. – sgeureka t•c 06:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't watch the programme either, but I think the articles should be improved rather than deleted. DutchDevil (talk) 17:40, 6 August 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.