Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Rose Cohen (2nd nomination)

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 Keep as redirect to The End's Not Near, It's Here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sophie Rose Cohen

Sophie Rose Cohen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails notability per WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS. A character who made a short appearance in a s single episode. Article contains no real world information. In the first nomination the only reason it was kept it was that Wikipedia in not paper. After a year notability was not established. Magioladitis (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Would there be a relevant episode article to redirect to as a plausible search term? -- saberwyn 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• If the character appeared in more episodes that would make perfect sense. But for a character who appeared in a single episode? I don't think so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that redirecting a character to a single episode article does make sense, because people searching for the character will be automatically taken to the venue of her sole appearance. But its a matter of opinion. -- saberwyn 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:FICT for lacking any relevant out-of-universe content, and for a character of an infant appearing briefly in the series finale, none will be forthcoming. That really does look like a botched initial AfD, where almost without exception, the Keeps were "Keep per Matthew" and nothing else, parroting the fellow who gave no grounds to keep beyond "WP is not paper" and "This is a notable character." Based upon what definition of notability?  RGTraynor  14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to The End's Not Near, It's Here. Catchpole (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Catchpole. If the series was continuing there might be a rationale to keep, but there isn't. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & RGT. No real-world content or context. I think a redirect is probably superfluous given the point raised above by Magioladitis. Eusebeus (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to The End's Not Near, It's Here. If this character only appeared in a single episode, and given how short the article is, I support a redirect. And WP:FICTION is not even a guideline and WP:SOAPS appears to be outdated as well, saying "All soap-related articles, and character articles in particular, must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fiction." --Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per clear consensus in previous discussion and fact that it cannot "fail" WP:FICT, which says, "references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect -- GRC, think for a bit. Read the article. This is about as minor a character as there is--no active role in the plot, one episode, end of the run. A redirect in this sort of case is an excellent example of a compromise way to do it. I understand the temptation to fight the deletionists every time they raise their heads, but some things are simply not worth separate articles. DGG (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Quite. What distinguishes the inclusionist / deletionist approaches from the knee-jerk partisan tribalism infecting such things in general is, well, not being knee-jerk about it. I'm sure I'd be counted as a deletionist, but if an article has good sourcing, that's an end to it; I've changed to Keep twice today upon the same. By contrast, I can't figure how the most radical inclusionist could claim that there are reliable, non-trivial sources about this character, what real-world context could possibly exist about her, or in what fashion and by what standard the character can be called notable. It bothers me when I see an AfD vote go a certain way, and shake my head and say "Well, it's that editor, what the heck else does s/he vote, no matter the evidence or lack thereof?"  RGTraynor  21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, there are a few accounts who only post to delete and who have even outright said that they are unwilling to argue to keep, whereas I have argued to delete on numerous occasions as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. I'm not incidentally opposed to a redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

summary i think something remarkable just happened. Except for Eusebeus and the nom, we have unanimous consensus here for a redirect. they dont want the redirect, but thats for the talk page of the article, or perhaps for Rfd. DGG (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. As the closer of the first one, I don't even see a need for a redirect to an individual episode. It's getting awfully bureaucratic. As least there's consensus on the non-notability though. Wizardman 17:31, 11 May 2008 (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.