Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Del Rossi

Marco Del Rossi

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. The character isn't notable per guidelines to warrant an individual article. RMHED (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Marco Del Rossi is only one character of the Degrassi series. By nominating this for deletion, you're saying that all of the characters should be removed. If this is true, shouldn't you then nominate all character articles? — Kendra Michele — 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as what appears to be a main character in a major show. I think the nomination is indeed meant to indicate the view that no character from this show or any similar show warrants an article, and presumably all character articles whatsoever. I presume he's picked this particularly strong one to try to make a case for it. The sourcing for what the character is is in the show itself, so it passes V and RS. I do not see any OR, just description. Plot description can be a major part of an article, though I would probably reduce some of the detail. The N is as a major part of a major show -- the N applies to all the major parts as well. NOT Inherited notability means we cannot assume that a derivative of the show, like a book version, was notable. The case here is different. That the nomination is for delete, not merge or redirect, should be an indication that the intent of it is that no part of the content is suitable anywhere, and that it isn't a possible search term either. As that is not asserted-- it is a nom for deletion to force a redirect or merge. Redirects and merges are gotten by discussion on the talk page--I see no attempt on the article talk page for any proposal of the alternatives. DGG (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am given no indication that this or any other deletion represents some watershed event. The nominator is just adding deletion nominations and merge suggestions of fictional subjects one by one. No part of that is some broad scheme to force us to make a proxy decision for every article out there. This particular article cites no sources (and hasn't for 6 months), covers a fictional subject in a manner that is entirely plot repetition and appears to receive at best trivial coverage from reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to be right, looking at the others. Thanks for the correction DGG (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]