Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Harris

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 Delete all. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Harris[edit]

Printer222 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)This article does not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable Printer222 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also decided to nominate the following articles for deletion for the same reason as above, these articles are about mainly relatively new characters. these include

The discussion for all of these articles should take place here. Printer222 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, Miles Copeland redirects to a real person. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry i forgot to add the (Home and away \) part to the link, it's fixed nowPrinter222 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Please note that the articles' creator(s) has/have a history of removing afd tags. Dreamspy (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home and Away article. Perhaps even merge information regarding characters into that article? --clpo13_(talk) 22:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is sad and one of the reasons why I'm disillusioned with wikipedia to see this up for deletion and what wiki has become.

"fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I am a certain that they have featured in world wide tv magazines which are independent of the subject so that covers that guideline.

Regardless of that rule, I find it madness how people that have been watched by 20 mill + people worlwide can be deleted. And you can shoot me down for that and I know this article will be deleted but this really does defy belief. Englishrose (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Points 1. WP: Fict is a guideline. I'd like the closing admin to consider WP:Ignore all rules, a small part of a guideline is clearly preventing notable articles on fictional characters that are viewed by millions from staying on wikipedia. A guideline is not a rule and not set in stone. Even if it was a policy then there is nothing stopping us from breaking it.

2. What makes Home and Away different to Eastenders? I know it's not an argument but why do Eastenders fictional characters never get deleted and Home and Away characters do (including one major award winning one)?

3. What is notability? If we ignore the guideline (which is all it is) then we come to the million dollar question, what makes a fictional character notable? Does being a regular character on a long running soap that is shown all over the world and watched by millions not make the character notable? If a musician had been watched by millions week after week, would he not be notable? Englishrose (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If those pages get deleted, then wouldn't it be sensible to delete Home and Away altogether? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.88.43 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 27 March 2008

Keep I really think its racist, all you stinkin' yanks and poms have even pages for your soap opera characters who even appeared in 5 minutes of an episode. Yet, us Australians have the pages for our soap opera characters who are part of the cast get deleted --AKR619 (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If character pages for other soap operas don't meet the guideline they should also be deleted, these articles shouldn't be kept just because similar articles exist. This is a discussion based on guidelines. Printer222 (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FICT. No assertion or adduction of real-world significance - hence we shouldn't have an article about them. Eusebeus (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT is only a guideline not a policey. Englishrose (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in asserting that it is a guideline. You thereby make a powerful point certainly and one of extraordinary perspicacity with reference to the specific terms of this discussion. Tx! Eusebeus (talk) 21:16, 28 March 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.