Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daphne Nicole Powell

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 merge to No_Ordinary_Family#Main_cast . Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Nicole Powell[edit]

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

This article is about almost an walled garden article under WP:Orphan and lacks notability under WP:Notability as the article is a) about a character in a TV series that was cancelled after only a single season and thus b) has no chance of being expanded in any meaningful way. Sephiroth9611 (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it kept without any sources. ●Mehran ^Debate● 05:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per Vejvančický. Redundant to the existing capsule summary in the main series article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect per Vejvančický – the article is completely unsourced, is the topic of something not very notable, and is written pretty poorly. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 05:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No_Ordinary_Family#Main_cast [1] [2]. Searching for "Kay Panabaker" "Daphne Powell" gives a lot of hits (including interviews etc.), but redirecting is in my opinion the best option. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed to a redirect in principle; I just think that if it's done here, then why not for any of the other main characters? I would say a basic search is just as effective in locating info as putting a redirect here. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress, incomplete and under construction. You can redirect the names or create articles for the other characters, it's up to you and the sources available. As for this particular case, I think redirect is a better solution than deletion. There are many more or less effective ways how to locate info, this is just one of them. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Vejvančický, and WP:ATD. There's no policy-based reason for deletion when a merger is entirely reasonable and achievable through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote to Redirect, but disagree with merge option, as to the extent that this article differs from the existing capsule, it is simply cruftier. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:57, 25 November 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.