Deletion of Rebecca Hendrix

Comment: Did a little search for the character: Found http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?date=10/10/05&id=20051010nbc01 Futon Critic 1, http://www.projo.com/tv/content/projo_20060411_11svu.d767029.html ProJo.com, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-121328447.html The Record, http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=7103 Futon Critic 2, http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/DPIB/lib00762,10995D42D3C738E6.html Inteligencer, and http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=68528 Corriere Canadese (French), among others. The character herself edges the plate for ... and one biography on 6 different pages seems a bit clumsy. She is not only erifiable, she is so in numerous  that deal with her. A redirect does not serve the better good of Wikipedia, as it is not proper to delete sourced and encyclopedic material. A merge? Well, that can be discussed on the article's talk page as is recommended by  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:ATD||WP:AFD)

Comment: as subject is |verifiable through multiple |reliable sources as confirmed on http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Rebecca+Hendrix%22+%22Law+%26+Order%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en Google News.  Moreover, the subject is |notable as she appears in five episodes in an award-winning television show on a major network (NBC) that has even appeared in the top 20 ratings lists for the week as confirmed in ''Entertainment Weekly''.  The character is played by an actress who is notable enough to have her own article as well.  The article passes OT#PLOT by containing out of universe information including the name of the actress portraying the character and a section on critical reception that can be expanded further by use of the above cited Google News sources.  Now alternately, we can '''merge''' the article as is being discussed elsewhere and as the nominator did without any discussion for several other characters for this show per .  This memorable (yes, I watch this show...) recurring character has appeared in several episodes across three seasons.  Few characters have had so many appearances and few characters from this show are covered at all in multiple reviews/previews.  We are not discussing some one-off weekly villain after all.  As such, merging a sentence or two to a character list with a section of recurring characters would not only be harmless, but be a fair and reasonable compromise given that this article is neither a hoax, copy vio, nor libel.  Rather it is something created in good faith and edited by multiple edited and viewed by hundreds more every month.  If as indicated above, there are arguably more notable people with this name, then that is a call for a disambiguation page or a rewrite that focuses on whoever is most significant with this name, but not a call to redlink.  If as the nominator suggests the subject is at least worst covering in the individual episode articles, then that two suggests there may be mergeable content or a reason to redirect, because obviously far more editors than who have commented in this AfD and far more readers as well find value in typing in "Rebecca Hendrix".  As such, we should at least maintain a redirect to the series page, the list of characters, an episode page, etc., i.e. there are other more valid options to be considered per .  It probably would have been best to have had the merge discussion first as well.  Now, granted I find this article interesting and useful and believe it has room for expansion and as such should be kept and yeah per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world); however, I am willing to acede to a reasonable compromise that allows for a redirect with edit history intact.  We should be able to meet at middle ground now, i.e. okay, some don't want separate articles, others don't want the content totally lost.  It's a win-win for all of us to just in such instances meet at a half way point and we should be willing to do so to avoid perpetuating animosity in these fiction AfDs.  And I think if we view that as the basis for a compromise, then we have a means to move forward.  Now obviously not all fictional character articles should even be redirected and I'll agree in such cases as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Cunningham_(Tony_%26_Friends) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish, but in this case we have List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, which is an obvious redirect location.  We know people want to look for information on the character, some of us don't think we should have a separate article, but seriously, there's no real reason why not to redirect to the character list per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:PRESERVE||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: as long as this article isn't ''kept''. Violates #PLOT, the Reception section is extremely trivial, and there is nothing to merge (except excessive plot, where trimming needs longer than coming up with five original sentences to describe her plot arc). &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as nothing but |plot summary with no encyclopedic content as required by :  ''Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works''.  The subject of the article also fails  as there are no reliable, independant sources that examine the specific character apart from the television series
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: as non-notable subject. Article is entirely  except for two sourced items about Mary Stuart Masterson, one of which (under ''Rebecca_Hendrix#Development_and_production|Development and production'') might be good to add to that article since getting on ''Law & Order'' was (as I read in that article) considered a big break for her
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)