Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livia Beale

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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Livia Beale

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

Fictional character from a short running series with little cultural importance. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason stated above:

Delete or redirect to Journeyman (TV series). Character already adequately covered in main article. Quantpole (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect or merge to Journeyman (TV series). --60.240.117.215 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong fan-base for the character. In addition, a great many things were revealed about the character during the series; enough for an article. -- Evans1982 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, page view stats do not support claim of fan base, which would really require a secondary source. Topic has no secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I was not aware that "cultural importance" now somehow supersedes WP:N. Using such an assertion as a reason to delete would seem to encourage rather than discourage an expanded systemic bias. Far better to look at the series and the character's coverage in sources over a 4-year period and then somehow argue that such coverage does not meet guideline. "Cultural importance"? Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 11 February 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.