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The result was withdrawn by nom. (Non-admin closure) --DFS454 (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Moore

[edit]

This article has no references and no real world information. It is about a character claimed to have appeared in the show during the last month. This is not enough to establish notability in a long running soap. Moreover, the name is too generic to keep this a a redirect. A google search gives a few results and for various people. Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to indicate real-world notability; not every character, even in a major soap, is inherently notable. At best, merge to List of characters from EastEnders. --Rodhull andemu 17:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided she really is going to be a regular character. Maybe it is too early to tell. Some coverage here: [1]. The Storyline section of the article is too detailed. The article should be an overview of the character, not a detailed recounting of the plot. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, usefy, or merge per Rodhullandemu. Ikip (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am explaining the reason why I believe we should not keep it as a redirect. Maybe a redirect with "(EastEnders)" attached? With this name it's very likely to have many wrong incoming links in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. If it needs to have "(EastEnders)" on the end in the future, someone will do it. It's fine as it is for now, and I redirected it to a relevant list, but you reverted. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting but I think you have to wait for the AfD to finish. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and only then consider whether to Merge or Redirect into a suitable article or list of minor characters. AfD is not proposed merges, nor a place to consider changing to redirects. . DGG (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Frickative 03:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Even the link provided by DanielRigal above contains only cursory reference to the character and does not provide real-world information about it. If information becomes available at a later date, the article could be recreated, but at this time independent reliable sources don't appear to exist at all. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had earlier voted delete, but the new sources suggest notability.Tractops (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. I am not opposed to merging the smaller characters into a larger article in the future. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been substantially revised since nomination to include sections on production (based on an interview with the actress playing this role) and reception using Google News hits (you have to play with the searches, i.e. don't just use "Marissa Moore" or Marissa and "Finn Atkins", etc. Moreover, I have rewritten the plot section so that it is based on what is covered in secondary source previews/reviews. Thus, the article contains considerably more out of universe context than plot now, and is entirely sourced by several British newspaper sources rather than any primary sources. From my searches it looks like even more is out there for future expansion as well. Thus, the article now has real-world information and several references from independent sources, because these are several references and range from an interview focusing specifically on the actress's for this role to previews and reviews that have at least enough to construct a reception section and secondary source cited plot section, the coverage is significant. Thus, I believe the article should be kept. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no longer is mainly plot summary and is adequately sourced.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to withdraw the nomination after the new additions. At least now a merge can be discussed. These elements can be used to improve the list of EastEnders characters article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for keeping an open mind! By the way, the interview can perhaps also be used for an article on the actress? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it can be used. Interviews about significants roles of actors are very important. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep loads of sources can be found in any tabloid or UK newsagent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of characters. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2009 (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.