Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Santino

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 TMNT (film). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (deliver) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Santino[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Secondary character with no established notability. Unfortunately, {{db-person}} only applies to real people? Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TMNT (film). Article is simply character description with no idependent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-No independent notability at all. A one off character. Redirecting such a generic name is is unneeded; it ties up a potentially common term for no good reason. oknazevad (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That issue is resolved by setting a redirect for Colonel Santino (fictional character) or Colonel Santino (TMNT). The redirect result still being the removal of this unsourced character description and the sending of readers to the one place where the character has context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thise are exceedingly unlikely search terms though. This is a decidedly minor character in the franchise as a whole, and not even the primary antagonist of the one and only work in which he appears; the chances of anyone searching for the character are rather low. We can't create double redirects, so what's the point of having the existing undisambiguated title at all if there's near zero chance of the character's name being searched. It's not a bad thing if someone winds up at the search results instead of an article. oknazevad (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That someone created the article in the first place indicates that it is a just likey enough search term. I agree that although sourcable,[1] the character descriptive has no independnt notability. What we disagree on, is how to best serve readers who may wish to search for this TNMT character. And to be clear, I was not at all suggesting a double redirect... simply leaving "Colonel Santino" as a redlink AFTER this article is deleted, and creating a new one from either of my suggested ideas and in order to guide a reader. Redirects are cheap. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the articles is a plot-only description of a fictional work. I also believe that it is an unlikely search term because it is a secondary character not firmly associated with the TMNT film . Jfgslo (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TMNT (film) - redirects are cheap, and keeping a redirect, as I recall, actually takes up less space on the servers than deleting does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 17 October 2011 (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.