Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Quagmire
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The result was redirect; nom withdrawn. Singularity 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Joan Quagmire
A very good description for this character is offered on the List of characters from Family Guy, but a one episode character certainly doesn't need their own article.Saget53 00:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Redirect a character that was only in one episode, and only to move the plot, is nowhere near having their own article. Redirect it to the list --Lucid 01:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect is your friend. There's no need in this case to employ AFD. Was there some dispute over that action? FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with redirecting the article, however, shouldn't we get rid of the actual character article? Maybe I'm missing something. Saget53 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly. I see you're concerned about deleting this article, but really, there's no need, unless there's a problem with the content (which there isn't in this case). Is it going to save space? Not appreciably. Wikipedia has terabytes of storage space. This article? It's not a significant section of the capacity. It's roughly a kilobyte in size. No big deal. Even throwing in the image it's not that much more. This text of this discussion is probably going to be bigger than that. Is there any problem with the content? No, not really. It's not defamatory, it's not vandalism, it's not nonsense. Heck, there's thousands of diff's of pages with reverted material that's not going anywhere. In this case, a redirect would have been simple, not controversial, and it's quickly done. Basically, unless there's objection to a redirect, or a problem like libel or copyright violation with a page, there's no reason to have a discussion in AFD. Just make the redirect and move on. FrozenPurpleCube 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. A redirect makes more sense. This one can be closed. Saget53 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly. I see you're concerned about deleting this article, but really, there's no need, unless there's a problem with the content (which there isn't in this case). Is it going to save space? Not appreciably. Wikipedia has terabytes of storage space. This article? It's not a significant section of the capacity. It's roughly a kilobyte in size. No big deal. Even throwing in the image it's not that much more. This text of this discussion is probably going to be bigger than that. Is there any problem with the content? No, not really. It's not defamatory, it's not vandalism, it's not nonsense. Heck, there's thousands of diff's of pages with reverted material that's not going anywhere. In this case, a redirect would have been simple, not controversial, and it's quickly done. Basically, unless there's objection to a redirect, or a problem like libel or copyright violation with a page, there's no reason to have a discussion in AFD. Just make the redirect and move on. FrozenPurpleCube 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. LaMenta3 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per above - Not enough notability established to sustain an article Corpx 06:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:25, 11 August 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.
