Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nuñez

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 merge to Degrassi: The Next Generation. Merge it is. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nuñez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable charater, article contains 0 sources and tons of trivial content. Gloss 21:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting article about a non-real, fictional, person. And lots of good sources for narrower search parameter adding word "Degrassi": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many sources there with actual information about the character, with about one article having actual content. The character doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Gloss 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Degrassi: The Next Generation- plausible search term, but insufficient coverage to warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs a major cleanup but there are references available ([1][2][3][4]). Tchaliburton (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find, those are it. Can we really keep an article with only three references available to source the entire page's material, especially when the character seems to not pass notability guidelines? Gloss 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, WP:TNT and notability. I don't see one source there. Wikipedia article space is not a coffee shop where we tell our friends some film we watched. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots she was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep, or merge I see an opinion above that we cannot keep an article with only three references. That's a much stricter requirement than the GNG, which at most requiees two. I've heard it suggested it should be 3, but I have never before heard it suggested it should be >3. If that's the arguemnt for deletion, the conclusion would be keep as adequately referenced. There may however be good arguments for merging into a list. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.