Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrelle Berengari

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 --ais523 10:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myrelle Berengari

Myrelle Berengari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional character. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. 142 ghits ("-wikipedia"), all from fansites and related, indicating it's unlikely such sources can be found. Article provides no real-world context and is entirely an in-universe plot summary, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The article is terrible, and as you say minor. Waste of resources. scope_creep 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. And before anyone complains I happen to be a huge fan of this series of books. I just don't think this kind of stuff belongs on here. Ridernyc 00:43, 3 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 20:57, 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)

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.