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 redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Tyler[edit]

Max Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

After months of not getting involved, I've re-directed all the Waterloo Road character articles to List of Waterloo Road characters except this one. The reason is that, unlike the others, it is properly referenced and does not have a long-standing unreferenced/in-universe tag at the top. Notability, however, is questionable. So I thought this deletion discussion could decide whether decent articles on individual characters are necessary, or whether they should be redirected on sight. U-Mos (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop tirading you lunatic. It's properlly sourced and is notcable. Sso give it up looking for excuses to completly ruin something that doesn't need to be. However saything that, that is what your good at isn't it...shitting on stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.126.121 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the IP editor 78 please assume good faith? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, yes it is properly sourced. WP:NOTABLE on the other hand...? Personally I'm not sure, especially with the other character articles being totally iredeemable, which is why I have nominated for deletion to generate discussion rather than redirecting this article with the rest. U-Mos (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters - unless an editor provides significant coverage in reliable sources which could lead to this article being more than just plot-only coverage, there's little to save. --Simone (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as the nominator suggests. This really just expands on the plot summaries in the series article. The character itself hasn't become independently notable in the way that, say, The Doctor has. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep like other shows, they have character pages, why can't waterloo road characters have one? These pages also give more insight to the characters. Mm3 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect not all characters in fiction warrant an article and this one does not have sources to WP:verify notability in accordance with the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2011 (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.