I find it ridiculous that an actress' page be redirected towards the character. I can maybe see deletion, but she is not her character. If Deanna does not qualify as notable, she should be a redlink (or thus no link), not a redirect. She has had other recurring roles, though perhaps none to get her article itself actually restored. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any new roles listed in IMDb since the previous redirection in 2010. I grant that she had other recurring roles, and this seems an odd way to handle an article, but I would have been all over un-redirection if there had been any new coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Close No deletion to review. Although I would say that "speedy keep" would have been the correct close for the 2010 AfD, this is not a current remedy for discussion that needs to take place on an article talk page, the closing admin's talk page, or at RfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, there's a deletion discussion to review. At first glance that one appears to be defective: you're right to say that "keep" or even "speedy keep" would have been the correct close. I also dislike the idea of redirecting a person's real life name to that of a fictional character. But what I don't see are decent sources for a BLP.—S MarshallT/C12:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that there was a consensus to "keep", IMO there was consensus that the remedy sought was an editorial process that did not require AfD. Now that we are marking speedy-keep closes as "speedy keep" and not "keep", things have changed slightly since this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. All Degrassi actors either have a redirect or an article. The character article should be deleted as not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse non-keep outcome. No one bothered to argue against redirection. A speedy keep would have been valid, but I think that it was better to leave the AfD open, since the article was a lightly-sourced BLP. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
There is simply no way that discussion had a consensus to redirect the article. It may not be a vote, but the will of the community was either clearly for keeping the article, or at worst no consensus. There certainly was no consensus to redirect. The event concerns one covered not just in specialized MMA press, but in the mainstream press due to a championship being determined. It is not some run of the mill "fight night", but a card put on by the leading MMA promotion in the world that is televised globally, covered in USA Today type of mainstream press and similar publications in other countries (Brazil, Japan), etc. due to a title bout being on the card. 172.130.242.182 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current close(s) There have been two separate AFDs for this article in the last month. The new article should have been deleted as recreation of previously deleted material, but I digress. In both AFDs the closing admins independently felt the article should be merged, properly. Viewing the AFDs makes it clear that this was the consensus. There are a number of IPs and now blocked and banned editors, meatpuppets and sockpuppets who have sworn to disrupt the process of merging many of these undersourced articles. This IP is simply one of them. Dennis Brown(talk)19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
