Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Crowder

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 speedy redirect to Justified (TV series) per both nominator and creator's requests. (But just for the record, Skydog892, this isn't your page.) Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Crowder

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

Unreferenced and possibly unnotable per WP:IINFO. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 05:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 05:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly, I do not think my page, Boyd Crowder should be deleted. I do not find it unnotable in any way whatsoever. I have not cited the page due to the fact that I do not know how to cie on Wikipedia. I contested the PROD for these reasons. Deleting said page would be thoughtless and ridiculous. Skydog892 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Skydog892[reply]

I agree with the deletion nomination at this point. There's not enough information out there to provide enough real world info for the character for it to warrant its own article. Perhaps that will change in the future but right now, even with what few citations would be available, it's all in-universe. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly confused by Millahna's comment. This is a fictional character. There doesn't need to be "real world" info. Please clarify what you mean. Skydog892 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Skydog892[reply]

WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:NOTABILITY cover the gist. If there were lots of sources talking about the casting of the character and how the character (as a purely made up example) were based on several real world criminals, then it might warrant its own article. Even then, there would have to be an awful lot of that information; enough to potentially overwhelm the current Justified (TV series) page (or possibly a Characters in Justified page if one is ever warranted). Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real world information would be creation, development, casting, reception etc. of the character. See for example Malcolm Reynolds or Derrial Book. Side notes: after typing ~~~~ you don't have to type your name again, it's automated; you also indented the paragraphs on Boyd Crowder which should not be done in an article, it is intended for making discussions easier to read, see WP:INDENT. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Trim somewhat and merge to Justified (TV series), which has currently no info on any of the characters. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Justified (TV series) per Xeworlebi. — Jeff G. ツ 21:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I feel that merge is better than delete because this character could become notable in the future. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 03:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Xeworlebi What you have written is very well done and will be a great start for the character profiles there. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the page for the TV show per all of the above. elektrik SHOOS 23:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge could not WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY of this topic but I am ok with a merge as a compromise. Would a non-admin closure be fine in this case since the nominator is also ready to merge? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydog892 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (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.