Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artis O. Peavey

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. Commas are not merely decorative. The arbcom injunction does not apply here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artis O. Peavey

Prod tag removed by another editor, although I should have explained my reasoning a little better. This is a non-notable character who is so minor that he doesn't even warrant mentioning in the suggested merge target. In fact, the only Fried Green Tomatoes article linking to this one is the movie, and then it's only telling us that the character was cut out of the screenplay. Biography is drawing from the main source, but it borders on an original research summary, and certainly has no reliable third party sources demonstrating notability. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable character in FGT book. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the injunction, at least until the Arbitration Committee rules in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2 --Eastmain (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument - The injunction is temporary, and doesn't affect AfD arguments, just when and if an AfD can be closed. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (once the injunction is lifted) - It's naught but plot summary about a character specific to one barely notable work with no sources that even hint at notability. Delete. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The almost-orphaned state, the lack of any kind of non-primary sources and the age of the merge proposal certainly don't help. ~~But it seems the injunction does not really apply. He is a character in a novel, not in a TV show.~~ (edit: depends on the interpretation of the arbcom injunction). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and in the case of clear consensus at AfD, I don't think the conjunction applies. Eusebeus (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a character from a book, and not a television show, and so the injunction is not applicable here. DarkAudit (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment - the injunction is applicable it says: "This article about a fictional character or episode of a television series, is subject to a temporary injunction by the Arbitration Committee" EJF (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said I suppose it could be interpreted to only mean TV show characters, even so, better safe than sorry - the admins don't want a block from ArbCom. EJF (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there has yet to be a non-injunction related keep vote in over two weeks, would this not be a clear case of consensus? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the only option to admins to keep (if consensus) or to keep relisting until the RfArb runs its course. EJF (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominating in the face of an ArbCom injunction shows severely defective judgement on the part of the nominator, despite their unquestionable good faith and sincerity - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I had been aware of this injunction beforehand, then I wouldn't have done this nomination until it was lifted. Unfortunately, not everyone knows everything about everything, myself included. I still stand by my observation that there are no actual keep votes, just people voting "keep in light of injunction", which doesn't bode well for this article, injunction or no. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:04, 9 March 2008 (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.