Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabitha-Ruth Wexler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete. Nishkid64 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tabitha-Ruth Wexler[edit]
- Tabitha-Ruth Wexler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
Article about one of many characters from a single novel (The Westing Game). Has minimal potential for expansion due to the its narrow scope; currently only exists as a primitive list of characteristics, and could only be added to by summarizing most of the book at the same time. Nominating for deletion rather than redirecting because there is no conceivable reason why someone would be looking up the character rather than the book, and because the existence of an article for the one character at the omission of all the others is a minor spoiler. Unint 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Otto4711 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Westing GameDelete per nom. --Dennisthe2 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- To clarify from above: I am suggesting that the redirect that would result from a merge should also be removed in this case, because it's entirely superfluous. Also, I would suggest that the contents of this not be merged with the main article; it doesn't really fit in the main article's structure, which already has a superior character description. –Unint 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said, and good point. Be that as it may, changing vote. --Dennisthe2 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify from above: I am suggesting that the redirect that would result from a merge should also be removed in this case, because it's entirely superfluous. Also, I would suggest that the contents of this not be merged with the main article; it doesn't really fit in the main article's structure, which already has a superior character description. –Unint 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, characters should generally be notable individually from the works in which they appear to have articles. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FICT and Dhartung. --Metropolitan90 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: read the book, but very narrow scope and WP:FICT. TRKtvtce 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FICT, not much potential for expansion.-- danntm T C 00:44, 14 January 2007 (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.