Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth
- 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 Closed as no reason for deletion has been asserted. When a merge is proposed, the article is usually redirected after the merge, not deleted, in order to preserve author attribution in the article's history. A merge should subsequently be discussed at the article's talk page, not in AfD. Also, the article is currently a Good article nominee (on hold). If there was a reason to delete, it would not even be considered for GA review in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Astrid Peth[edit]
- Astrid Peth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A one-off character - brilliant as she was, doesn't really deserve her own article. I would suggest that as a character, she is non-notable. As a part of the episode - even the main part of the episode - she undoubtedly is, and should therefore form a part of the episode's article. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You are aware that the article is currently a GA-onhold, right? WP:notability (fiction) allows nn spin-off articles when encyclopedic tratment is apparent, which is the case here. (As I am the GA reviewer, I also thought in hindsight that she may be merged into the article of the episode she appeared it, but that's a question for merging, not AfD.) – sgeureka t•c 17:27, 17 March 2008 (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.