Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Blood

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Blood

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Should be a redirect, but an editor keeps insisting on re-creating it without any sources which show real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple GNews coverage over the years of the actress and/or character show that this is a reasonable standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: Could you link the best of such coverage, preferably ones focusing on the character, not the actress? She is notable, but this character, much less likely so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not high enough priority, sorry. I think Rosguill's assessment is reasonable--I just think that counts as significant coverage for the character, even if other editors disagree. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage I can see is limited to quick character bios that really stretch the definition of significant. When this is the best reference in the article, we have a problem. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan creation. The actor is notable not this article. References don't support an article. scope_creep^Talk 08:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources showing notability of the character have been presented, and the article as it stands is a 100% fancrufty plot summary, which merits a WP:TNT treatment. Ping me if sources are found or preferably, if the article is improved with them, and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: dug for some significant coverage in Newspapers.com and ProQuest and didn't find anything more than passing, except some light coverage in The Sunday People, which I assume to be unreliable. Firefangledfeathers 06:32, 20 February 2022 (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.