Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Scavo

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 no consensus. The last two "keep" opinions make no sense, but we don't have consensus for deletion either. Sandstein 18:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Scavo[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Plot-only article, which violates the WP:NOTPLOT policy. BlackShadowG (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. BlackShadowG (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim appropriately. The first four Google Scholar links all appear to be substantively about this character. One is paywalled, one is dead, but each appears from title/abstract to be on topic. That is, this article is banal, but the topic is notable. Regardless, if not kept this should be redirected to the series in which this fictional character appears. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Desperate Housewives. Trimming would only make the article a shorter plot-only article, which wouldn't fix the issue. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some info on her casting and reception, although I could have added more to the casting section admittedly. I can do that if the article is kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:46B0:3840:8479:7CA1:8515:5879 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is notable and there are many credible sources pertaining to them. While it is true that the article needs work, the plot section can be trimmed and more substantive information can be added. Underclass King (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further policy based comments would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeepRose&Bernard (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2022 (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.