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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Nylund[edit]

Rose Nylund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

There is to no reliable third person information about the character not the actress that played her. This is the distinction people who will no doubt campaign for this article to be saved will say there is information when in fact they talk about this article. There lots of information on the actress who played the role but not specifically the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is exactly the sort of information that people will seek when searching an encyclopedia. A brief google news search shows an awful lot of articles and that won't even include features like those found in TV guide and entertainment mags. The underlying premise of this nomination would elimiate most television characters Vartanza (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so convinced it suitable for an article why don't you include some. WP:RELIABLE SOURCES if you believe its notable. The WP:BURDEN on the editor to show its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This AfD was originally created on 5 September but the nominator did not properly complete the nomination by placing it on the day's AfD page. Completing nomination now. Redfarmer (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for much the same reasons I argued for here. Many of the same sources also apply to Rose. Main character in one of the most influential American television series, as well as one other. Redfarmer (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You'll have to just delete every page on wikipedia that is about a fictional character. I am certain references can be found - it's only work to do it. Vinithehat (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although Wikipedia at one time had way too many articles about non-notable fictional characters, items and places, that doesn't mean that we should purge it of all fictional items. Rose Nylund easily meets notability requirements [1]. Besides being the signature role for comedienne Betty White, the character is fairly well known even when not mentioned in connection with White [2]. Unlike other ditzy fictional characters, Rose Nylund is known for the bizarre stories that Betty White somehow managed to tell with a straight face. Mandsford 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Vartanza. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major character in long-running show, nominator appears to misunderstand sources that exist vs. sources currently in the article. No fatal problems evident, there is nothing wrong with the article that cannot be fixed by editing. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lots of !votes for keep, but no evidence of notability. Lots of ghits for a mention, or in blogs, but no critical analysis or in-depth coverage, which is what WP:GNG requires and I can't find. Please provide some actual examples of these sources that are so far only asserted to exist so I can change my mind or to convince the closing admin! Bigger digger (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject has been written about in thousands of reliable sources. Where else can we find stupid stuff like this except Wikipedia? It's not like we are going to run out of shelf space! EnabledDanger (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Come on now. This is not some transforming teenage transsexual robot from a manga. Even on mentions alone she is a keeper--I submit this as evidence. That the article isn't great is beside the point. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is some duplication in the wiki article on "The Golden Girls" so if anything, that shorter profile of Rose Nyland might be trimmed and this one expanded further. hifrommike65 10 Sept. 2010
• Comment. This is ridiculous, can someone please show one source that goes some way to establishing her notability for a separate article? I'm not concerned with how the article looks at the moment, I'm interested in finding WP:RS that lead to WP:Notability. The book search from Drmies has in-universe description, WP:MIRRORS, and sources suitable for the actor/actress' (depending on degree of PC) article. Come on, stop asserting she's notable and make me change my !vote!! Bigger digger (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good FA or GA article should, roughly, include at least three sections: fictional biographical data, casting and production information, and a reception section. Fictional biographical information on the character should be sourced from in-universe sources, including the episodes themselves. It is not unusual for sources on casting to overlap between character and actress. This source and this source discusses the casting of the character, including the fact the role was originally intended for Rue McClanahan. This article briefly discusses the character's transfer to The Golden Palace. This book mentions that White won an Emmy in 1986 for her portrayal of the character, and this article mentions that, at the time it was written, White was being nominated for her seventh emmy for the character. This is more than enough to start a reception section. This is more than enough for a good start on a quality article. Redfarmer (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having looked at some of the fictional character FAs it seems to me like notability is established by having lots of sources, none of which struck me as particularly in-depth, so I guess community consensus is to keep, but I can't find a guideline that supports that. I therefore can't really justify changing my !vote, but would like to thank you for taking the time to reply. Bigger digger (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As pointed out under the Blanche Devereaux nomination, these were HIGHLY significant characters, the stars of a hit TV show that ran for seven years in first run and forever in syndication. The characters were considered breakthrough television role models of older women [3]. I'll add a "significance" section later when I have time. These characters should never have been nominated for deletion, or once nominated they should have been Snow Kept. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles can't be snow kept if there is even one vote for deletion, as is the case with this particular article. Redfarmer (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reasons mentioned in the nominations for Blanche Devereaux and Sophia Petrillo. Notable character in a long running show. Dream Focus 21:21, 13 September 2010 (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.