Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Bradshaw

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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Bradshaw[edit]

much better text on main Sex in the City page Rakerman 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough character from a notable enough show. youngamerican (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Offers no new information. In fact I will be be bold and do just that. --kingboyk 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the Merge and redirect action taken by kingboyk. The main Sex and the City page is much better.RayGates 02:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The great thing about a merge and redirect is that it's easily undone. In the unlikely event that someone comes up with some amazing depth of information that requires a seperate article, they can go right ahead and reverse my action. As Ruby says this is a major show - but a hopeless article. I think Wikipedia doesn't lose anything by my action, it has actually gained. --kingboyk 02:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not like this show is an ensemble piece with dozens of major characters Ruby 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I consider that Carrie Bradshaw warrants a standalone article as WP:FICT, there is plenty of material to answer info on the Sex in the City page. Would vote to keep if there was a decent article. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 06:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't know what the contents are but should be a sufficiently notable character to have its own page. MLA 10:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When someone comes up with a good article, a new one can be created, but this vote is about the current article, which does not deserve to be kept. Why don't you check the contents before voting? RayGates 13:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No Comment because I'm not going to bite the newbies and the above statement speaks for itself. MLA 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - For future reference: Go the article. That will redirect you to the Sex & City article with a little message at the top saying redirected from Carrie Bradshaw. Click on Carrie Bradshaw, and you'll go to the original article. You can then view the history. Here's a link which will take you right there: [1]. That's the last edit before I redirected. One paragraph and nothing which does any more than state the obvious. --kingboyk 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I restored the stub (for now), since the AfD seems to be leaning towards keep, for now. If the vote does indeed come out as M&R, a quick reversion to Kingboyk's edit will do nicely. youngamerican (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens, I shall probably unilaterally replace it with a merge and redirect unless the article improves. It's an interesting conundrum really, because on the one hand we have this AFD debate, on the other hand we have a clear precedent that merge and redirect is appropriate for very small articles which are closely related to another subject and which have little chance of being reasonably expanded. Of course, I won't revert any such change if it's undone with a good reason stated in the edit summary. --kingboyk 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the consensus, as viewed by the closing admin, is keep, it would be inappropriate to unilaterally M&R. The best bet, if the result is keep, would be to slap an expansion tag on the article to ensure that it is improved and expanded. If the final tally indicates no consensus, however, it would be entirely acceptable to M&R and slap an expansion tag on the talk page, letting those that like the show know about the attention needed for the article. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to move that this debate be closed. I don't believe anybody will vote to delete. The merge/redirect issue can then be resolved at that page. --kingboyk 01:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cheers for the technical advice. A low quality article does not mean it should not exist. The article should be tagged for cleanup of some kind rather than being removed. MLA 09:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. C'mon, guys! The overwhelming precedent is that notable characters from important books/films/shows get articles. Grandmasterka 08:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and expand. Despite my own personal dislike of the series, the majority of TV series have pages for major (and often minor) characters. Essexmutant 12:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case there should be articles for at least each of the four major characters. The descriptions of the characters on the Sex and the City page could be separated out into separate articles.RayGates 17:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. The show is iconic enough and the characters are themselves notable enough for sucha treatment by wikipedia. youngamerican (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also agree. The other three main characters are all notable enough to have their own articles. Essexmutant 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added a link to author RatherConfused 12:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:27, 6 February 2006 (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.