Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Bailey Quarters - Knowledge

Source 📝

538:- It doesn't effect our notability rules (which revolve around what I can show you online, right now) but people seem to think she is a minor or medium character from the show. She is not, she is one of the few main characters. The show takes place in a radio station set, with the same characters every episode.. She was one of these main characters. Google books keeps bringing up non-viewable books, but I can say with a high degree of confidence, based on five years of finding and not finding refs to save articles, that sources do exist. She's a major character, from an influential show. - 281:
source material. What is meant by "the only commentary on offer"? Who's offering, other than you? There is ample "real world" secondary coverage of the subject matter, beyond the particular source you reference, and are cited in the article. The article qualifies for notability under the standards of Knowledge, is well sourced and indeed meets and exceeds the standard for a "Good" article.
311:, and reviewed all the 'sources' on offer, which is what I referred to above as 'commentary'. The source I called-out is lightweight and from a self-published source, but at least it is a few paragraphs on the character while all the others amount to passing mentions dredged up with Google. Happy editing, 280:
This is the second time that someone has merged this article with no notice and no prior discussion. The comments above in favor of merger or deletion are so far divorced from what is actually in the article that I am led to question whetehr Mr Merridew even bothered to read either the article or the
324:
on September 26, 2009 without prior notice, proposal or discussion, and again by the same editor on September 28, 2009. It was restored (twice), extensively edited, and discussed on the Talk Page. Eusebeus apparently was satisfied, as he let the matter drop. Second, it was once again redirected by
348:
No. In other words, you don't know the difference between a merger and a redirect, you've mischaracterized your own actions here, and you can't count. And, I'd venture that you don't know what an editwar is either, except that it's pretty clear from your edit history and talkpage that you know
445:
It's called a low standard of referencing. The appropriate outcome here is ditching this heap of fanwank and using the "Hathor Legacy" piece to add a brief nugget of encyclopaedic content to the character summary in the list. Happy editing,
200:
Non-notable minor fictional character from WKRP. article has been restored post-merge, twice. It is mostly plot summary and OR/SYNTH, and the "sources" are seem to amount to every trivial ghit out there. The only commentary on offer is:
600: 169: 253: 339:
In other words, you've been editwaring with at least three other editors about redirecting this character article to a more appropriate summary in the list of characters. Happy editing,
124: 163: 224: 597: 431:
It's called research. If you actually have a substantive comment to make in support of your proposal, I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading it.
547: 480:
The premise of your argument is fatally flawed. Bailey is one of the seven principal characters in an ensemble cast, not a secondary character.
413: 129: 97: 92: 560: 101: 563:), but she was indeed one of the principals. That plus the woman in a man's job aspect and the Bailey vs. Jennifer comparison (a la 84: 17: 184: 151: 325:
you on January 18, 2010, again without prior notice, proposal or discussion. After I restored it, you commenced this AFD.
543: 409: 680: 628: 145: 36: 656:
Sufficient sources to indicate notability. Nominator's accusation of faking references is troubling and false.
584:. Clearly one of the principals, and I see no convincing evidence that the references are in any way "faked". 679:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
665: 648: 631: 611: 588: 576: 551: 528: 512: 489: 473: 450: 440: 426: 417: 396: 367: 358: 343: 334: 315: 290: 271: 242: 213: 141: 66: 572: 539: 405: 191: 621: 349:
exactly what an editwar is, and that my edits on this article don't qualify as even a minor skirmish.
88: 422:
trivial mentions dredged up off teh interwebs. They amount to faking references; the bar is higher.
661: 508: 177: 644: 564: 469: 447: 423: 364: 340: 312: 300: 210: 568: 523: 485: 436: 391: 354: 330: 286: 49: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
157: 80: 72: 619:
per being a major character in a notable series. Sorry Jack, nothing minor about Bailey.
657: 607: 504: 640: 585: 465: 321: 308: 262: 233: 299:
merged, not merged a second (or moar) time. There is more than adequate coverage at
518: 500: 481: 432: 386: 350: 326: 282: 202: 118: 320:
To be precise, it wasn't merged in either instance. First, it was redirected by
603: 559:. She got maybe the least airtime of the main characters (either her or 517:
No, if it's redirected, it should be redirected to the WKRP article.—
596:- as one of the principal characters in show with coverage such as 673:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
503:, the actress who portrayed her on WKRP in Cincinnati. 639:
One of the principal characters in a notable series. -
464:
and redirect per consensus about secondary characters.
254:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
114: 110: 106: 176: 404:- Not sure what's wrong with all those book refs. - 385:She wasn't a "minor" character on the show, FWIW.— 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 683:). No further edits should be made to this page. 225:list of Television-related deletion discussions 190: 8: 248: 219: 252:: This debate has been included in the 223:: This debate has been included in the 7: 24: 363:sometime 2+2=5. Happy editing, 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 301:WKRP in Cincinnati#Characters 205:; not enough, in my opinion. 666:18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC) 649:17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 632:05:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 612:19:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 589:13:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 577:09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 552:05:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 529:16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 513:02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 490:22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 474:21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 451:21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 441:20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 427:20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 418:19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 397:19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 368:21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 359:20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 344:20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 335:20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 316:19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 291:19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 272:19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 243:19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 214:19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 67:21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 700: 567:) tip the scales for me. 676:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 565:Ginger vs. Mary Ann 44:The result was 274: 270: 257: 245: 241: 228: 691: 678: 624: 540:Peregrine Fisher 526: 521: 406:Peregrine Fisher 394: 389: 295:The article was 269: 266: 260: 258: 240: 237: 231: 229: 195: 194: 180: 132: 122: 104: 64: 34: 699: 698: 694: 693: 692: 690: 689: 688: 687: 681:deletion review 674: 622: 524: 519: 392: 387: 264: 261: 235: 232: 137: 128: 95: 81:Bailey Quarters 79: 76: 73:Bailey Quarters 60: 56: 50: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 697: 695: 686: 685: 669: 668: 651: 634: 614: 591: 579: 554: 533: 532: 531: 493: 492: 477: 476: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 399: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 322:User: Eusebeus 275: 246: 198: 197: 134: 130:AfD statistics 75: 70: 58: 54: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 696: 684: 682: 677: 671: 670: 667: 663: 659: 655: 652: 650: 646: 642: 638: 635: 633: 630: 629: 626: 625: 618: 615: 613: 609: 605: 601: 598: 595: 592: 590: 587: 583: 580: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 561:Venus Flytrap 558: 555: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 534: 530: 527: 522: 516: 515: 514: 510: 506: 502: 498: 495: 494: 491: 487: 483: 479: 478: 475: 471: 467: 463: 460: 452: 449: 448:Jack Merridew 444: 443: 442: 438: 434: 430: 429: 428: 425: 424:Jack Merridew 421: 420: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 400: 398: 395: 390: 384: 381: 369: 366: 365:Jack Merridew 362: 361: 360: 356: 352: 347: 346: 345: 342: 341:Jack Merridew 338: 337: 336: 332: 328: 323: 319: 318: 317: 314: 313:Jack Merridew 310: 307:the article, 306: 302: 298: 294: 293: 292: 288: 284: 279: 276: 273: 268: 267: 255: 251: 247: 244: 239: 238: 226: 222: 218: 217: 216: 215: 212: 211:Jack Merridew 208: 204: 193: 189: 186: 183: 179: 175: 171: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 143: 140: 139:Find sources: 135: 131: 126: 120: 116: 112: 108: 103: 99: 94: 90: 86: 82: 78: 77: 74: 71: 69: 68: 65: 63: 62: 61: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 675: 672: 653: 636: 627: 620: 616: 593: 581: 569:Clarityfiend 556: 535: 501:Jan Smithers 496: 461: 401: 382: 304: 296: 277: 263: 249: 234: 220: 206: 199: 187: 181: 173: 166: 160: 154: 148: 138: 53: 52: 51: 45: 43: 31: 28: 164:free images 297:previously 57:rbitrarily 658:Edward321 557:Weak keep 505:Mandsford 303:. I have 265:Gongshow 236:Gongshow 641:Ret.Prof 623:Schmidt, 548:contribs 497:Redirect 466:Eusebeus 414:contribs 125:View log 536:Comment 520:Chowbok 482:Fladrif 433:Fladrif 388:Chowbok 383:Comment 351:Fladrif 327:Fladrif 283:Fladrif 170:WP refs 158:scholar 98:protect 93:history 599:, and 586:Powers 462:Delete 309:thanks 207:Delete 142:Google 102:delete 637:Keep: 602:. -- 278:Keep. 185:JSTOR 146:books 119:views 111:watch 107:links 16:< 662:talk 654:Keep 645:talk 617:Keep 608:talk 604:Whpq 594:Keep 582:Keep 573:talk 544:talk 509:talk 486:talk 470:talk 437:talk 410:talk 402:Keep 355:talk 331:talk 305:read 287:talk 250:Note 221:Note 203:this 178:FENS 152:news 115:logs 89:talk 85:edit 46:keep 546:) ( 499:to 412:) ( 192:TWL 127:• 123:– ( 664:) 647:) 610:) 575:) 550:) 511:) 488:) 472:) 439:) 416:) 357:) 333:) 289:) 256:. 227:. 209:. 172:) 117:| 113:| 109:| 105:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 48:. 660:( 643:( 606:( 571:( 542:( 525:☠ 507:( 484:( 468:( 435:( 408:( 393:☠ 353:( 329:( 285:( 259:— 230:— 196:) 188:· 182:· 174:· 167:· 161:· 155:· 149:· 144:( 136:( 133:) 121:) 83:( 59:0 55:A

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
deletion review
Arbitrarily0
21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Bailey Quarters
Bailey Quarters
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
AfD statistics
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
this
Jack Merridew
19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
list of Television-related deletion discussions

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.