Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotchkiss family

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 Passions. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hotchkiss family[edit]

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

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability, and does not have the sort of third-party reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Passions. Article does not establish notability outside of the aegis of Passions. Hotchkiss family is notable within the context of Passions. Useful content can be merged into the parent article or another appropriate article. Since aspects of a fictional work are still going to be covered, article or not, a merge suffices in this situation where independent notability can hardly be established, but the content is still notable within the fictional work itself. —Mythdon 13:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mythdon: Thank you for your vote. I am not entirely sure what material should be merged into the page for Passions however. I believe a majority of the information would be best suited for the Gwen Hotchkiss and Rebecca Hotchkiss articles instead (where they are already covered). Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Passions; strictly unsourced fancruft. Anything useful can be picked from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Either result is fine considering the article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2016 (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.