Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Evans
- 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 Good Times. (non-admin closure) Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thelma Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Michael Evans (Good Times) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This Good Times character is not notable in her own right. Wlmg (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both to Good Times#Cast and characters. I don't see the reason for a flat-out delete. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a few sentences of each and redirect to Good Times. The individual articles don't appear warranted, but a summary of these characters (as done with the "minor" characters listed below them) certainly seems appropriate. Gong show 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A google book search for either shows lots of encyclopedic content exists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And said content hasn't been added to the article because...? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it has been added to the article is irrelevant at AFD. We are discussing whether a topic merits encyclopedic attention (whether there is encyclopedic content for a subject). We do not debate how well that content is incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, merely saying encyclopedic content exists doesn't hold much weight; you have to prove it exists. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thelma source proof: [1], [2], [3].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael source proof: [4], [5], [6].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those 6 sources given are either brief mentions in encyclopedias, Google Books content generated from Wikipedia content, or brief mentions in a book that references Good Times , which itself was only briefly mentioned. These are not the type of sources that can anchor an article.Wlmg (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, merely saying encyclopedic content exists doesn't hold much weight; you have to prove it exists. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it has been added to the article is irrelevant at AFD. We are discussing whether a topic merits encyclopedic attention (whether there is encyclopedic content for a subject). We do not debate how well that content is incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And said content hasn't been added to the article because...? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:22, 10 July 2013 (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.