Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Branning

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 of the debate was no consensus. default to keep. --Ezeu 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Branning

• Delete - (until the character appears) - This fictional character has not yet appeared and is as yet just a proposed character - cannot establish notability until she does Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep - she is not a "proposed" character, it has been confirmed that she will appear in the show. At WP:WPEE we take great pride in our articles relating to EastEnders, and have many articles for upcoming characters, who are related to current events. This character will be related to existing characters, which on it's own is a point of interest. The article is also linked to from 14 other articles, proving its notability. This should not be deleted, and, to be frank, I think the nominator is wasting their time, as I'm sure my fellow participants in WP:WPEE will also vote to keep this article going. Trampikey 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the point centres on the fact that not every single character in the history of a TV show deserves a WP article; and whether or not this particular character will go on to become a notable enough character surely cannot be established until they have been on the show for a certain amount of time. I don't really have a vote to make either way, though, although I would perhaps suggest an appropriate redirect (either to the main EE article or, if there is one, an article about minor characters) that can be made into a full article should the character later be deemed important enough. Seb Patrick 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment and beyond that you appear to be overly-eager to bend (if not break) WP:NOT crystal-ball clause, then essentially claim "might makes right" based on the purported number of members of WP:WPEE. At the very least, include some verifiable information from reliable sources in this article about this supposed forthcoming character. You claim this is "confirmed", so source the article.--Isotope23 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and I strongly recommend WP:CHILL to the author; if this character is indeed to appear in the show and is going to be a notable character, what's the rush? I also admit I'm not charmed by the implication we're about to see a horde of meatpuppets. RGTraynor 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The meatpuppets are now arriving after the trolling by Trampikey --Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Trampikey. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Please cite your sources that your character is gonna be huge. The burden of proof falls on you. And I'm not charmed either. Grandmasterka 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to EastEnders until more specific information is released, namely date of debut and/or airing. Until it's specifically determined and announced, it is speculation as its been known to have proposed characters and/or actors dropped from the cast list just before a planned debut. B.Wind 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per RGTraynor. Y'all should listen to that dude. -- GWO
• Keep per Trampikey. Sweetie Petie 09:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - (sighs) Trampikey isn't being very subtle about trolling for favorable votes ... RGTraynor 16:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Just looking for support from my fellow WikiProject participants! Trampikey 16:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:I would have voted to keep this regardless of any "trolling". Sweetie Petie 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: To be fair, Trampikey is only bringing this AfD to the attention of those who have an interest in it. I'm going to abstain: but I fully endorse comments about needing references. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - There's a difference between alerting the locals to an AfD and statements like "Please go and vote to keep this article!" and suggesting the nom has a vendetta against them. RGTraynor 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Vendetta" was a strong word, and is against AGF. Then again, I'm not sure "trolling" is being used correctly here either. 'Advertising', 'campaigning', perhaps? The JPS^{talk to me} 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  (Just realised that "trawling" was probably the word you were thinking of? The JPS^{talk to me} 10:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

• Keep: The reference from a good source (DigitalSpy) seems to solve the problems. Issues of notability seem to have been dilluted somewhat since most EE characters have articles now. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep for the same reason as the jps. Jamie 18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and tag as "Future Product". The citations are good for me. --Quentin Smith 08:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question: When does this close? Trampikey 17:30, 5 June 2006 (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.