Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Richards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Editors may merge if consensus dictates Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe Richards[edit]
- Chloe Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. delete. Jack Merridew 08:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep character spanned 10 years, there must be a fair bit of coverage out there in the Australian/UK press on this character.GunGagdinMoan 11:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minor character; no real-world significance. –Moondyne 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ten years on a notable show is an obvious indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect Long spanning does not relate to notability - she was a minor character in the context of the series. Orderinchaos 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP (or merge) - This is a relevant article providing valuable added information to Wikipedia. Please stop the overzealous policing and deletion of Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, this meets each of Wikipedia's Five Pillars which explicitly states they are the only five rules, rendering all other arguments irrelevant.Aliveatoms (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aliveatoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made the identical argument on multiple AfD discussions within a short timespan. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one of the appropriate Home and Away character lists. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 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.