Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trudy (coronation street)


 * 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. User:King of Hearts who deleted this page seems not to have closed this AfD, so I'll do it. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trudy (coronation street)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is essentially a stub with no sources nor indications of notability (per WP:FICTION). It has been tagged for insufficient sources, and notability concerns, since August 2007 and October 2007, respectively. No pages link to this, so I see little cause for conflict. -- Lewellyn talk 23:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Speedy) Delete - one of the most ridiculous articles I have witnessed; I regret not noticing this myself. Words can't describe a reason other than common sense - it's just ridiculous and completely unncessary. Bungle (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. unnotable.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I wouldn't call this utterly ridiculous, but it does fail the fiction notability guideline through a presumed lack of third party sources.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is utterly ridiculous - it's character seen for less than 5 seconds in a past sponsorship clip for a tv programme. Now if that isn't ridiculous, I give up on wikipedia (or just on some of its contributers). It certainly is very far from being even noteworthy on an encyclopedia... Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's utterly non-notable and whether people discuss it on forums is extreme fancruft (I haven't seen this character myself and can't find any pictures of it on the Internet). But it still falls short of being ridiculous especially given the amount of cruft we still already have that new users might judge as a sign that articles like this are OK for inclusion.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it doesn't meet a policy-written CSD outright, but it certainly does in my own eyes. As far as I am concerned (my opinion this is), if an article has no right to have any existance in the encyclopedia, where a debate will achieve nothing other than the same as common sense would, then it should be deleted speedily, regardless of whether hard-written policies state as much or not. It is purely my own opinion, so take it as you will. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I scrutinized the CSD for this one. I suspect that we'll just have to wait it out. Since the only links to the article were spawned by the AfD, I'm sure that it'll remain just as obscure, and that it will be missed about as much as we'll remember it in a few months. ;) -- Lewellyn talk 21:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Being American, I cannot judge on potential notability of the character. All I can say is that, in the article's current state, the criteria appear far from met. Also, even if the character was only on-screen for a number of seconds, that doesn't preclude the possibility of notability. As an example, the famous 1984 commercial was aired once, in a single country, for sixty seconds, twenty-odd years ago, and is still considered influential in advertising worldwide. So, from my external view, I hesitate to call the article utterly ridiculous. However, I will steadfastly continue to claim that the article does not currently merit inlusion in Wikipedia, in its current state. For all I know, Trudy could be spectacularly groundbreaking for reasons currently widely unknown. (My wild imagination suggests such bizarre things as: Being the first ultra-realistic CG spokesperson on British television whose voice was synthesized by a cluster of 128 salvaged BBC Micros, and audiences not knowing that the spokesperson was not "real"...) But until there is sourcing indicating any notability whatsoever... Well... -- Lewellyn talk 13:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This could be closed per WP:SNOW right now. There is coverage of this character, actually, but none in reliable sources. I'm curious as to what this character looks like, because obviously I don't watch Coronation Street.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed it is being taken seriously.. This "character" is no more notable than any extra who has a small part in any sponsorship clip for any programme. So what if people on a forum have discussed it? If I picked one randomly, started a discussion then started an article, would it be any more than just "negligably notable"? Come on, this is daft and I still stand by my common sense speedy. Bungle (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 January 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.