Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Evershed

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 redirect‎ to List of Spooks characters. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Evershed

[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)

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. It could redirect to Spooks but it may unbalance that article, or to the actress. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Digital Spy Retrospective, Whatculture, INews, Telegraph. These aren't the greatest, but I cannot access the Scholar article and book reference that look promising. It'd be reasonable to start a Characters of Spooks list as a summary style parent of all the other Spooks Character articles, so that any that might be found non-notable, including this one, have a reasonable merge target. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens I can't access the book aritcle either, but it seems it is a mention on a single sources. The academic article is accessible through Library Genesis and all we have there are four mentions in passing (two in quotes from interviewees or such), nothing remotely relevant to WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of characters or the show if there is no list.. We have only few mentions in passing and some low quality fanzine-level coverage. WP:GNG is not met. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. I don't see enough for WP:SIGCOV, which means that WP:GNG is not met. The keep !vote offers a merge as a compromise, and it would be fine to WP:PRESERVE whatever mentions can be verified. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2024 (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.