Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandra Dee
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 Redirect to List of DuckTales characters. This seems to be a more appropriate target since there is already mention of the character there. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gandra Dee
Non-notable, in-universe only fictional character. Fails WP:FICT requirement for reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject matter. Ghits appear to be confined to fansites and cartoon forums. Article itself states this character is largely non-notable within the universe. Doctorfluffy 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This article has almost no reliable ghits and fails the fiction policy. STORMTRACKER 94 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Fenton Crackshell. Gizmoduck was a pretty major character, his girlfriend really wasn't, but should still be mentioned/described on that page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to some Duck Tales related articles as it is information that someone might want to know.--E tac 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."--Masterzora 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as this stub has no content, real-world context, primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability, which are very good reasons for deletion.--Gavin Collins 08:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge a sentence or two to Fenton Crackshell per above. - Richfife 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
