Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Marlowe

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. Clear consensus and reasons to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Marlowe[edit]

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

unsourced fictional character bio that was appropriately redirected and has been inappropriately restored, twice. Jack Merridew 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major character in an ensemble cast on a major program that was summarily redirected without notice or discussion. The same considerations that resulted in a "Keep" [1] for the Bailey Quarters article applies with equal force here. Let some editors take the time to add references. Fladrif (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect to the WKRP in Cincinnati article where there is an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. - Josette (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? [2] If so, weighing in on these discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again.Fladrif (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and per PLOT. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major and sourcable character in a notable series, who has received coverage in reliable sources [3][4] . No need to redirect, when the article can be trimmed some and improved. Surmountable issues are not a cause for deletion just because someone ELSE has not yet done the work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the major characters are already covered in depth in the WKRP in Cincinnati article and in the respective articles on the actors. How much more information do we need on these rather, let's face it, trivial characters from the past, and why would we need this information in more than one location? - Josette (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Josette... you may think the one very terse paragraph at WKRP in Cincinnati about Jennifer is "in depth", but I and many others do not. While certainly the current Jennifer Marlowe might benefit from some trimming, its total elimination is not the best answer, when it can so easily be improved through normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The arguments being made here and in the other related AFD's in support of deletion are based on faulty premises. Problems with adding sources and revising tone, content and organization can be fixed; the articles can certainly be improved, a couple of different editors have taken a shot at them. Those are not reasons for deletion, merger or redirection. Notability of these principal characters as elements of a work of fiction, is clearly established by the extensive secondary coverage of them in multiple reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction). Arguments directed to editors' personal opinion as to the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of the series or any of the characters are utterly irrelevant. The extensive availabilty of reliable secondary sourcing on what are objectively iconic characters in a long-running award-winning series evidence to the contrary.Fladrif (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article. Each of these WKRP characters are icons within an iconic series. Label it "bad" as you wish, the series survived for 5 years on a major network, longer in syndication then had revival efforts. In particular, this character, Jennifer Marlowe, the hot secretary that takes everybody's breath away made Loni Anderson. It cannot be deleted. I will also agree that Bailey Quarters deserves her own article. This all seems so repetitive to have save each of these articles.Trackinfo (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC
Speedy Keep Quote: "There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article." (I am in agreement) Luigibob (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons mentioned above, plus...Loni Anderson is a notable enough person to warrant a in-depth article on one of her most memorable characters. Sabiona (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with today's youth is that they spend too much time on Wikipedia and not enough time watching classic 1970s sitcoms. We are literally losing our TV heritage. --DanielPenfield (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (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.