Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Hoyland

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hoyland[edit]

might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. a fictional kid of various fictional ages due to being afflicted with Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome. delete. Jack Merridew 12:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A long and detailed plot summary / character biography that only a dedicated fan would be interested in. It cannot be re-written to meet WikiProject Soap Opera's notability standards for characters or WP:Notability as the subject has not received real-world coverage in reliable independent sources, so cannot satisfy the inclusion criteria. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, the article is unsourced and unlikely to be reliably sourced. Best suited for a Neighbours wiki or fansite. I am not generally a big fan of the word "cruft" as its definition seems to be "detail that I don't like" but in this case the article is clearly fancruft. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor character; no real-world significance. –Moondyne 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge afggre that it is not possibly worth a separate article--that is no reason why there should not by a paragraph in a merged article, and a redirect. There is no rational argument against a redirect. I notice none of the people above seem to disagree--all they have done is argued, very correctly, that it should not be a full article. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete character page without potential for real-world context. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.