Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Hurst
- 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 and redirect to List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Melissa Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable minor character of a soap opera. It appeared for some months. Article contains, expect actor's name, no real world information. It consists only of plot. Fails notability guidelines per WP:FICTION as well. Article created some days after character entered the show and only contributions were in the plot.
Note:Closedmouth contested prod by giving as only reason "prod contested". Prod template read "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason". User didn't give any reason in the edit summary or on the talk page. When asked in its talk page (User talk:Closedmouth) said that he/she is not the one who contests the prod. (For an explanation check article's history). Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks. ~~ [Jam][talk] 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, its more helpful to give a specific reason in removing a prod, but if not, then presumably the reason is that the deprodder doesn't feel the prod reason given is correct. One advantage in giving a reason more fully is of course the possibility of convincing the prodder of just that--it can be done; a bald deprodding will usually simply end in a trip here. DGG (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a discussion held in Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, so I'll skip the prod part. I just want to inform that "Mellisa Hurst" merged in List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks. I think we can close the Afd by converting the article in a redirect. What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and does not provide any evidence of notability outside of NCIS, nor does it cite any sources for verifying its content, so merger is not an option. This article appears to be original research and there is no reasonable justification for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all one has to do is go into any newsagent and peruse any one of a number of TV magazines for plenty of 3rd party commentary on any soap character. Gee, wonder how I can find them....only the among the biggest selling magazines around....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks, where the character has already been merged. Unless someone actually adds real-world information to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT, there is no reason that the character needs her own article. – sgeureka t•c 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect since the content has already been merged into List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks.--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks, not notable enough for a seperate article. RMHED (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it can't really fail "fiction" guidelines that are still actively and rather vigorously being debated and written. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:45, 7 June 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.