Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectra Fashions (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   REDIRECT to Sally Spectra. The last AFD should have resolved this. Redirect, and salvage anything of value from the history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Spectra Fashions
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No real world information, references, media coverage, no notability outside the show. Only unreferenced plot. Maybe some parts are original research or made-up. The result of the first Afd, two months ago, was ""merge to Sally Spectra" but nobody did. This is normal because there is nothing really to merge in the Sally Spectra article. Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sally Spectra if there's nothing worth merging.  --Dynaflow   babble  22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This article can be deleted. It has been rewritten and reorganized into the new Jackie M Designs article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derexican (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jackie M fashions is even worse because this name is valid since November 2007 and Spectra Fashions was for many years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This name is valid?...what are you talking about? The Jackie M Designs article corresponds to the timeline of the show and is updated to reflect the events that happened on the show that led to the transition from Spectra Fashions to Jackie M Designs....doesn't matter how old the Spectra Fashions article is...it's outdated and not relevant to the show..it has its own subtitle on the Jackie M page....Derexican (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect Preserves the history in case someone wants to merge or finds the sources to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter how outdated it is, some parts of the world are still behind on the US seasons or showing reruns. This still remains a valid search criterion. Either the new article should be renamed, and the redirect kept, or the whole thing should redirect somewhere else. Deletion is not an option because of it being a plausible search term. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Renaming to a name that is more unknown? 123 hits for Jackie M Designs! -- Magioladitis (talk)


 * Delete per nom as merge is unnecessary. Eusebeus (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep RE: "No real world information, references, media coverage...Maybe some parts are original research or made-up" WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." this is not the place to improve the article. no notability outside the show Notability states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." no efforts to find sources were mentioned in nomination. 38 google news entries, written in the book The Bold and the BeautifulIkip (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and then consider whether to Merge into a suitable combination article if there is one. The newspapers do seem to talk about it. I note that the examples that Ikip found can and should be used equally well to justify articles on every character they discuss. If we're going to rely on a count of third party sources for notability, Google's expanding newspaper coverage is going to increasingly make almost everything notable. DGG (talk) 20:40, 31 January 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.