Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedikiah (Tomorrow People)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jedikiah (Tomorrow People) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any cited information into The Tomorrow People. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- merge and delete are not synonyms, but opposite. Merging is an alternative to deletion, according to WP:Deletion policy, section 2.3 , so I suppose you mean to amend your statment to: "merge any cited information into The Tomorrow People. In other words, keep. DGG (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I mean exactly what I typed and I'm fully aware of the deletion policy. However, there is no cited material, therefore nothing will be merged, therefore deletion is appropriate. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As there are now some citations, changing to merge that much (and no more) into The Tomorrow People. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and delete are not synonyms, but opposite. Merging is an alternative to deletion, according to WP:Deletion policy, section 2.3 , so I suppose you mean to amend your statment to: "merge any cited information into The Tomorrow People. In other words, keep. DGG (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' seems to be some cited material now., enough to establish notability as a separate article. DGG (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article now meets WP:GNG. I wish people would look for sources before !voting for deletion... Hobit (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article sourcing seems to have been expanded, establishing it better. WilyD 13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per souces. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 23 October 2008 (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.
