Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:48, 26 April 2009 editThe wub (talk | contribs)Administrators92,616 edits →Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom): ani discussion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:59, 27 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(30 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''. There has been somewhat successful progress to add ] to the article; we expect to see more of them. No prejudice against renomination should the additional sources fail to materialize. ] ] ] ] &spades; 06:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}}


:{{la|Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Line 15: Line 22:
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. — -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)</small> *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. — -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)</small>
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. — -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)</small> *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. — -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep''' and send to ] and further source the individual per coverages in ] . While the nomination seems a tad ] and perhaps more suitable to discuiison on the article's talk page, coverage in RS is available, a few sources HAVE already been added, and saying that a rewrite ("''original research were removed as it should''") would reduce the article to "''plot details that fail''" does not account for the fact that what is being called ] might itself be found in the sources available, making it NOT OR. It is a pity that the article itself has not addressed all of these issues in what the nom considers a timely manner, but his timeline for improvement is ], and Wiki never demands that it itself be perfect. Bringing his concerns to AfD is laudable, and may now force improvement, but even that may not satisfy him ("''If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to ]''"), (Sorry, but I DID read the entire nomination summary). As for the name being an "''unlikely search term''", I found enough even through google to show that it is not. ''']''' '']'' 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Keep''' and send to ] and further source the individual per coverages in ] . While the nomination seems a tad ] and perhaps more suitable to discuiison on the article's talk page, coverage in RS is available, a few sources HAVE already been added, and saying that a rewrite ("''original research were removed as it should''") would reduce the article to "''plot details that fail''" does not account for the fact that what is being called ] might itself be found in the sources available, making it NOT OR. It is a pity that the article itself has not addressed all of these issues in what the nom considers a timely manner, but his timeline for improvement is ], and Wiki never demands that it itself be perfect. Bringing his concerns to AfD is laudable, and may now force improvement, but even that may not satisfy him ("''If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to ]''"), (Sorry, but I DID read the entire nomination summary). As for the name being an "''unlikely search term''", I found enough even through google to show that it is not. ''']''' '']'' 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
**I reviewed the added content and found less than 2.5 kB worth of non-redundant information (most of which is the refs themself), which I have while paying particular attention to rephrase the sources so that the COPYVIO and GFDL don't apply and doesn't necessitate an {{tl|R from merge}}. The main article is now 14.5 kB big, still in the lower part of ]'s 1-40 KB range of ''prose'' size where "Length alone does not justify division", which is exactly the point of AVOIDSPLIT. &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) **I reviewed the added content and found less than 2.5 kB worth of non-redundant information (most of which is the refs themself), which I have while paying particular attention to rephrase the sources so that the COPYVIO and GFDL don't apply and doesn't necessitate an {{tl|R from merge}}. The main article is now 14.5 kB big, still in the lower part of ]'s 1-40 KB range of ''prose'' size where "Length alone does not justify division", which is exactly the point of AVOIDSPLIT. &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as unjustifiable spinout per the well-formulated and presented nom. ] (]) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as unjustifiable spinout per the well-formulated and presented nom. ] (]) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' for the reasons listed last time. Also there is enough information to warrant its own article, and it has a reference section. ]''' 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Keep''' for the reasons listed last time. Also there is enough information to warrant its own article, and it has a reference section. ] 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I see no utility in merging, the material. --] (]) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Keep''' I see no utility in merging, the material. --] (]) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. The information in this article that isn't either ], ], or just flat out ], amounts to the following:<blockquote> Virginia Lewis is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the Hallmark Entertainment's, and NBC's 2000 cult miniseries ''The 10th Kingdom'' by Simon Moore. She is played by Kimberly Williams. Ron Wertheimer describes Virginia as "that plucky waitress...on her way to self-confidence." John Levesque writes that "Kimberly Williams is annoying yet somehow captivating as Virginia."</blockquote>The portrayer information, as well as the 17 words of critical reception, fit easily and handily into the ''10th Kingdom'' article. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC) * '''Delete'''. The information in this article that isn't either ], ], or just flat out ], amounts to the following:<blockquote> Virginia Lewis is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the Hallmark Entertainment's, and NBC's 2000 cult miniseries ''The 10th Kingdom'' by Simon Moore. She is played by Kimberly Williams. Ron Wertheimer describes Virginia as "that plucky waitress...on her way to self-confidence." John Levesque writes that "Kimberly Williams is annoying yet somehow captivating as Virginia."</blockquote>The portrayer information, as well as the 17 words of critical reception, fit easily and handily into the ''10th Kingdom'' article. — ''']''' <sup>|''' ]'''</sup> | 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
**By that same argument, all of wiki could be set as a 3 word redirect: "Misplaced Pages: See Britanica". How one trims something and how it is then sourced is a matter for ], not deletion. ''']''' '']'' 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC) **By that same argument, all of wiki could be set as a 3 word redirect: "Misplaced Pages: See Britanica". How one trims something and how it is then sourced is a matter for ], not deletion. ''']''' '']'' 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as MichaelQSchmidt has offered a pretty good rebuttal to the nomination. Now here's what we have in this case: *'''Keep''' as MichaelQSchmidt has offered a pretty good rebuttal to the nomination. Now here's what we have in this case:
**1. ] - at least the reception section is mergeable as even the above editor who despite the bolded delete agrees as well as the first bolded delete who also says it can be covered elsewhere. **1. ] - at least the reception section is mergeable as even the above editor who despite the bolded delete agrees as well as the first bolded delete who also says it can be covered elsewhere.
Line 29: Line 36:
**Argument (1) could always be used to defy any merger attempt, so it doesn't have much weight for a particular article either. Argument (2) is rather subjective considering that WP:N calls for sufficient sources (since the article isn't even C-Class, I'd be wary to call the present sources "sufficient"). Argument (3) ignores much of my deletion rationale where I specifically said that the available sources and the main article together do not justify a ]. I would have been fine with a merger (by someone else; I didn't see mergeable content myself) or a redirect the first time around (and am still), but the past AfD result and the continued article restorations defeated attempts to implement these changes without an AfD (and the alternatives of an RfC or dispute resolution would simply have been overkill). &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) **Argument (1) could always be used to defy any merger attempt, so it doesn't have much weight for a particular article either. Argument (2) is rather subjective considering that WP:N calls for sufficient sources (since the article isn't even C-Class, I'd be wary to call the present sources "sufficient"). Argument (3) ignores much of my deletion rationale where I specifically said that the available sources and the main article together do not justify a ]. I would have been fine with a merger (by someone else; I didn't see mergeable content myself) or a redirect the first time around (and am still), but the past AfD result and the continued article restorations defeated attempts to implement these changes without an AfD (and the alternatives of an RfC or dispute resolution would simply have been overkill). &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
***The sources demonstrate the topic is notable by providing some in-depth critical discussion of the character, and all of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. Moreover, the article passes ], which probably has more consensus behind it anyway than the divisive WP:FICT, which has had so many versions, this probably passes at least some of them. And the bottom line is that there is no consensus to delete this article. After all ] is nothing more than ], because if we go by any reasonable inclusion criteria, i.e. it is verified in multiple reliable secondary sources and appeared in a multi-part series on a major network that got a DVD release, we would obviously keep, as has happened twice before already (note both closed as "keep," not "merge and redirct," or even "no consensus" in ] and ]). I can somewhat understand renominations when something was deleted but recreated or the close was "no consensus", but we have two "keep" closes already and no one can deny that the article has improved since then. What is more, are video interview with the actress, too ( and for example). Wasn't one of the compromises of WP:FICT that we can use such DVD interviews as a reliable source for these sorts of articles? Anyway, please note that I have been making numerous revisions since nomination: . At this point, the right thing to do would be to not have a deletion discussion when the community has twice spoken already against redlinking and most of the bolded deletes within this discussion actually call for merges, which means we can't deleted per the ]. Given the suggestions by some in the first AfD for creating a character list as some sort of compromise, I strongly encourage you to withdraw this nomination and start a merge discussion concerning such a list. When I have more time, I would gladly help, but per ], we absolutely do not delete cited material that has ''any'' potential for mergers or redirects. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 04:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ***The sources demonstrate the topic is notable by providing some in-depth critical discussion of the character, and all of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. Moreover, the article passes ], which probably has more consensus behind it anyway than the divisive WP:FICT, which has had so many versions, this probably passes at least some of them. And the bottom line is that there is no consensus to delete this article. After all ] is nothing more than ], because if we go by any reasonable inclusion criteria, i.e. it is verified in multiple reliable secondary sources and appeared in a multi-part series on a major network that got a DVD release, we would obviously keep, as has happened twice before already (note both closed as "keep," not "merge and redirct," or even "no consensus" in ] and ]). I can somewhat understand renominations when something was deleted but recreated or the close was "no consensus", but we have two "keep" closes already and no one can deny that the article has improved since then. What is more, are video interview with the actress, too ( and for example). Wasn't one of the compromises of WP:FICT that we can use such DVD interviews as a reliable source for these sorts of articles? Anyway, please note that I have been making numerous revisions since nomination: . At this point, the right thing to do would be to not have a deletion discussion when the community has twice spoken already against redlinking and most of the bolded deletes within this discussion actually call for merges, which means we can't deleted per the ]. Given the suggestions by some in the first AfD for creating a character list as some sort of compromise, I strongly encourage you to withdraw this nomination and start a merge discussion concerning such a list. When I have more time, I would gladly help, but per ], we absolutely do not delete cited material that has ''any'' potential for mergers or redirects. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 04:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' As nothing has been shown that this character is ] ''in the real world''. Notability isn't inherited from a notable show to its characters. Each subject in itself must meet ] by being the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable, third-party sources, and nothing in this article, or in my searches, has shown that it meets ]. This article also violates ] as its written from an in-universe perspective. Everything mentioned about her from the real-world has only been a trivial mention. There hasn't been a degree of ''discussion about her'' that warrants an encyclopedia article. Most of this information ''shouldn't be preserved'' as its not encyclopedic. The in-universe plot summary is much too long per ] and ]. No offense to Michael Q Schmidt, but no amount of cleanup in the world can magically make a subject fit for an encyclopedia if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and isn't discussed adequately in the real-world. The other material can be cited and look nice, but its still inappropriate. Verifiability != Notability. A redirect would also be acceptable, but I doubt that many people would search "Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)" and ] already redirects to the 10th Kingdom. ''']]]''' 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Delete''' As nothing has been shown that this character is ] ''in the real world''. Notability isn't inherited from a notable show to its characters. Each subject in itself must meet ] by being the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable, third-party sources, and nothing in this article, or in my searches, has shown that it meets ]. This article also violates ] as its written from an in-universe perspective. Everything mentioned about her from the real-world has only been a trivial mention. There hasn't been a degree of ''discussion about her'' that warrants an encyclopedia article. Most of this information ''shouldn't be preserved'' as its not encyclopedic. The in-universe plot summary is much too long per ] and ]. No offense to Michael Q Schmidt, but no amount of cleanup in the world can magically make a subject fit for an encyclopedia if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and isn't discussed adequately in the real-world. The other material can be cited and look nice, but its still inappropriate. Verifiability != Notability. A redirect would also be acceptable, but I doubt that many people would search "Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)" and ] already redirects to the 10th Kingdom. ''']]]''' 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
**An argument for proper cleanup, not deletion. That you do not belive it can be done, does not mean it cannot be so done in the ] Misplaced Pages allows for such. And again, as for the name being an "''unlikely search term''", I found enough even through google with exactly THAT search term to show that it is not an unlikely one. ''']''' '']'' 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC) **An argument for proper cleanup, not deletion. That you do not belive it can be done, does not mean it cannot be so done in the ] Misplaced Pages allows for such. And again, as for the name being an "''unlikely search term''", I found enough even through google with exactly THAT search term to show that it is not an unlikely one. ''']''' '']'' 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
***You misread what I said. Proper cleanup is ''impossible'' for this article, for the reasons I listed above, which you haven't addressed. ''']]]''' 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ***You misread what I said. Proper cleanup is ''impossible'' for this article, for the reasons I listed above, which you haven't addressed. ''']]]''' 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
****What I read was your ''opinion'' that cleanup was impossible. I and others disagree and I am pleased to see that it is indeed being improved. ''']''' '']'' 06:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ****What I read was your ''opinion'' that cleanup was impossible. I and others disagree and I am pleased to see that it is indeed being improved. ''']''' '']'' 06:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' no independent sources that establish independent notabilty for this fictional personage. Redirect to the show after delete.] (]) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Delete''' no independent sources that establish independent notabilty for this fictional personage. Redirect to the show after delete.] (]) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
**Adding sources is a matter for ] per ], not one for deletion. ''']''' '']'' 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) **Adding sources is a matter for ] per ], not one for deletion. ''']''' '']'' 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
***But how many of those sources are reliable secondary sources ''about the character'' rather than about the show. From a quick look through those links I couldn't find any that were mainly about the character. Rather, she is mentioned generally in the context of plot summaries, which isn't enough to show notability. Let's see some specific reliable secondary sources mainly about the character, then you might be onto something. Simply quoting ghits establishes nothing. ] (]) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ***But how many of those sources are reliable secondary sources ''about the character'' rather than about the show. From a quick look through those links I couldn't find any that were mainly about the character. Rather, she is mentioned generally in the context of plot summaries, which isn't enough to show notability. Let's see some specific reliable secondary sources mainly about the character, then you might be onto something. Simply quoting ghits establishes nothing. ] (]) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
****Since the character exists only within the context of the ], such an expectaion for individual notability would be neigh impossible and is not expected nor required. There are numerous precedents on Misplaced Pages for inclusion of major characters that exist because of their shows, not because they exist apart from them. '''Not''' being offered as ], but solely as examples of existing and established precedent... ], ],], ], ], ], ], and many, many others... all of whom are discussed in ] in direct context of and because of their shows. ''']''' '']'' 06:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ****Since the character exists only within the context of the ], such an expectaion for individual notability would be neigh impossible and is not expected nor required. There are numerous precedents on Misplaced Pages for inclusion of major characters that exist because of their shows, not because they exist apart from them. '''Not''' being offered as ], but solely as examples of existing and established precedent... ], ],], ], ], ], ], and many, many others... all of whom are discussed in ] in direct context of and because of their shows. ''']''' '']'' 06:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as the main character in a TV series, some of the printed (but not online) sources will discuss the character in an out-of-universe fashion. This highlights the importance of printed material ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Keep''' as the main character in a TV series, some of the printed (but not online) sources will discuss the character in an out-of-universe fashion. This highlights the importance of printed material ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' per A nobody and Michael, noting the cleanup and sources added. ] (]) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Strong keep''' per A nobody and Michael, noting the cleanup and sources added. ] (]) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 42: Line 49:
*'''Speedy Keep''' The nominator's statement indicates that he thinks that the article should be redirected not deleted because this is what he has just tried. Bringing the matter to AFD again after failing to establish consensus for that redirection/merge seems an abuse of process contrary to ]/]. The topic is clearly notable as the sources demonstrate. The organisation of the material and which article it belongs in is not a matter for AFD, being instead a matter for ordinary content editing. AFD is not dispute resolution and per ] should only be used for hopeless cases. ] (]) 21:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Speedy Keep''' The nominator's statement indicates that he thinks that the article should be redirected not deleted because this is what he has just tried. Bringing the matter to AFD again after failing to establish consensus for that redirection/merge seems an abuse of process contrary to ]/]. The topic is clearly notable as the sources demonstrate. The organisation of the material and which article it belongs in is not a matter for AFD, being instead a matter for ordinary content editing. AFD is not dispute resolution and per ] should only be used for hopeless cases. ] (]) 21:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
**There are only two ways to handle redundant subarticles that have ''no content to merge''. Gentle und undramatic redirecting (didn't work), or a dramatic AfD. Unless someone presents a third option, I guess I'll just have to accept my damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation on my quest for a better wikipedia. &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC) **There are only two ways to handle redundant subarticles that have ''no content to merge''. Gentle und undramatic redirecting (didn't work), or a dramatic AfD. Unless someone presents a third option, I guess I'll just have to accept my damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation on my quest for a better wikipedia. &ndash; ] <sup>]•]</sup> 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The sources don't demonstrate the topic is notable, the sources demonstrate that The 10th Kingdom is notable. I'd like to seem some in-depth critical discussion of the character, but none of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Delete''' The sources don't demonstrate the topic is notable, the sources demonstrate that The 10th Kingdom is notable. I'd like to seem some in-depth critical discussion of the character, but none of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
*:Then just a matter of adding sources per ] and per ]. Deletion diminishes wiki. ''']''' '']'' 05:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC) *:Then just a matter of adding sources per ] and per ]. Deletion diminishes wiki. ''']''' '']'' 05:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Note this AfD by one of the editors here. ''']]]''' 07:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) *'''Comment''' Note this AfD by one of the editors here. ''']]]''' 07:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
:I notice above he actually posted "Note: This debate has been included at Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Talk:Christine White, Talk:The 10th Kingdom Ikip (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009(UTC)" That does seem like an odd way of doing it. The articles are all related, so those involved in one, would want to know of the others I suppose. Wasn't done in secret, since he mentioned it four days ago, when two of these other articles were up for deletion too.]''' 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :I notice above he actually posted "Note: This debate has been included at Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Talk:Christine White, Talk:The 10th Kingdom Ikip (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009(UTC)" That does seem like an odd way of doing it. The articles are all related, so those involved in one, would want to know of the others I suppose. Wasn't done in secret, since he mentioned it four days ago, when two of these other articles were up for deletion too.] 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
::See also ]. ] ] 10:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ::See also ]. ] ] 10:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Yup. Three impartial, neutral, friendly notices, do not a canvas make... and such courtesy is fully supported by guideline. ''']''' '']'' 05:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, notability has not been established as required. ] <small>]</small> 12:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
*:Neither ] nor ] are valid reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
*::: It's a good thing I didn't use those, or ]. Sincerely, ] <small>]</small> 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*:: U can haz ]… I'll go find it sometime. ] 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*::What I'm sure you meant to say was "An essay suggests that ] and ] are not strong arguments." ] (]) 13:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Merge without prejudice''' to normal editorial process undoing the merge if consensus considers it appropriate. Direct merge should generally be used to accomplish the goals of this AfD, and then normal process followed in the event of conflict over merge. Far less disruptive than AfD, more likely to result in stable consensus. As noted, merge would allow efficient restoration of the article if better coverage appears in RS. --] (]) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. And here we have the problem of Misplaced Pages reduced to one afd. The article is contentious to teh community, and good faith efforts to edit the page become confrontational because neither party will compromise. The plot borders on entertainment as opposed to information and also borders on copyright violation, if not going beyond. However, how likely is it the plot summary could be reduced? If it can't be, and the article still proves contentious... we're basically just gaming the system and turning Misplaced Pages into a battleground by insistences on black and white absolutes which can't be entertained and respect ]. I pity the admin who has to close tis, because no-one is engaing with teh actual issues that face the article. It's just become the latest venue to have a fight. Best of luck with it. ] <small>] </small> 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per excellent, well-reasoned nomination. ] <small>(])</small> 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
*:And with respects, the opinions to keep are themselves well-reasoned and support the continued improvement of wikipedia... for the readers and the future of a paperless encyclopedia. ''']''' '']'' 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' as Non-notable fancruft. The reception section states that someone said "Kimberly Williams is doe-eyed and pretty" and that's what this piece of shite article is about; fans of a hottie prattling-online. Use the "doe-eyed" bit in ] (which does not mean 'merge'). sgeureka and others have covered all teh good reazons twoz delete; juz dooz-zit. Cheers, ] 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:::that the character is simplistic, and the whole work derivative, does not detract from notability, or give a reason for contempt of the articles. I am as little a fan of this as anyone is likely to be, but then I dont expect most people here to be fans of some of the stuff I like. The presentation of the plot gives information about the plot--viewing it might conceivably give entertainment, but merely reading the bare plot could not possibly --whether or not one liked the series. Nor is this very rough outline anything like copyright vio. Even for doe-eyed, that remarkably trite method of visual characterization, any pleasure is perhaps seeing it, not reading about it. The few short quotes are used appropriately. all this article really needs is sources for the generalizations in "personality and traits". ''']''' (]) 08:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or '''Merge''' (with preference to the former) per excellent, well-reasoned nomination countered by inapplicable and badly argued arguments. --] (]) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It's a notable character of a notable series. Also the article is too large to be merged in ] unless we trim it significantly. However, I see no reason to trim it down since the article is properly sourced. ] (]) 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The sources cited refer to the series as a whole — there is no coverage or consideration of this character in particular, depriving it of the real-world notability that our inclusion guideline requires. Merging would not be suitable; given the history of this page I would expect it to be demerged against consensus. ] (]) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or '''Merge'''. No worthy independent content, no notability attested by outside sources. ] (]) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

*'''Update'''. Hiding touches upon a good point. This AfD has now become the subject of two ANI threads and it is pretty clear that there is a degree of bad faith and inaccuracy in some of the above as relates to these ANI threads. It is also clear that there absolutely is no consensus to delete. Thus, rather than persist in augmenting any animosity here, we should be able to do what Hiding suggests, i.e. come to a reasonable compromise. Clearly a good segment of our editors and readers believe these articles are Wikipedic, hence, why they were kept in two AfDs already and why there is no consensus to delete this third time. As such I have started a location where we can merge (no, I have not yet merged this particular character's article yet) and a discussion at ]. Character lists are a sound way to compromise on these sort of things and if we use the many interviews, previews, and reviews of the mini-series that discuss the characters as a whole, we have a good chance to develop such a list into three sections: 1) on development; 2) the list of characters; and 3) on reception a la what I did when I revised this particular character's article. Plenty of out of universe information exists and it is undeniable that these characters are indeed notable as a whole. So, let's follow Hiding's suggestion and work together on this compromise solution. Regards, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*:Blessed are the peacemakers. ''']''' '']'' 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*:: For future reference: file an ANI report then use it as a reason for shutting down the AfD... If you can improve the page, fine, but I don't see it yet. ] <small>]</small> 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to ] or the list article. As has been pointed out previously, the sources here are also in the main article. There is, in my opinion, insufficient mention of this character in those sources to justify a stand alone article; however, deletion clearly is not appropriate. I see no reason why this can't be merged back to the main article given the identical sourcing. ] ] ] 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Until peaceful route to a "characters of" article is created. Also a suggestion to look for likely redirects of other character names so newby articles don't create more problems. Fictional subjects are some of our finest articles and there's no reason that compromises can't be sought that address the needs of our readers and adheres to policies. ] 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 16:59, 27 February 2023

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 no consensus. There has been somewhat successful progress to add reliable sources to the article; we expect to see more of them. No prejudice against renomination should the additional sources fail to materialize. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)

Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article, along with two other characters from this five-part miniseries, was AfDed three months ago for reasons lack of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources (i.e. WP:NOTABILITY) if you check Google News/Books/Scholar for "Virginia Lewis" "10th kingdom", and no source is cited in the article. The article is also WP:REDUNDANT to the parent article The 10th Kingdom, contains WP:OR (the "Personality and traits" and "Cultural references" section, honestly, read it!), and if the original research were removed as it should, the rest of the article would consist of plot details that fail WP:WAF and WP:UNDUE (I'd add WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT if they weren't under discussion at the moment). The article has been tagged for over half a year for these issues, and no improvement is in sight. Speaking from experience writing the FA article on the highly influental six-part miniseries Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial), the main articles already gives due weight to the all the characters and nothing needs to be merged from the current character subarticle. If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to WP:AVOIDSPLIT until a sizeable article without much redundancy to the parent article has been written. I boldly redirected the article yesterday per these reasons without being aware of the last AfD, but the redirect got reverted.

I do not think three months is too early to start a new AfD. Additionally, the last AfD only ended in a keep because an editor claimed that "Principle characters in the major series deserve an article" and that a merger would be appropriate, followed by "per him" votes. However, a five-part TV miniseries is not a "major series" in any way, and I stated above why a merger or redirect doesn't make sense . Plus, this is an unlikely search term. I'd like the closing admin to review and balance the presented arguments in this new AfD very closely against my full deletion rationale. – sgeureka 08:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In case this isn't obvious, the current cited sources (which were added after the nom) are also present in the main article, The 10th Kingdom. That's why I specifically named AVOIDSPLIT in the nom. – sgeureka 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is just an extension of The 10th Kingdom, with even more in depth plot details that I do not believe are suitable for an encyclopedia. Can be adequately covered in the main article. Lacks any sources. Searching mainly gives plot summaries, and there doesn't seem to be much reputable coverage of the character. Quantpole (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to The 10th Kingdom and trim. Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per Edward321, with no prejudice against a re-spin-out when sources speak to the character specifically. Jclemens (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge the one line of reception to the main and per my original AfD; the rest is just an excessive repeat of the plot that was culled from the main and doesn't need to be added back. Generally, miniseries are considered films rather than a television series, as far as Misplaced Pages purposes are concerned, and this sort of split is both unnecessary and inappropriate. Articles had been merged before, but were resplit under new article names without discussion by a banned sockpuppet. Needs to be taken back that way again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included at Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Talk:Christine White, Talk:The 10th Kingdom Ikip (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP and further source the individual per coverages in WP:RS diff diff. While the nomination seems a tad WP:TLDR and perhaps more suitable to discuiison on the article's talk page, coverage in RS is available, a few sources HAVE already been added, and saying that a rewrite ("original research were removed as it should") would reduce the article to "plot details that fail" does not account for the fact that what is being called WP:OR might itself be found in the sources available, making it NOT OR. It is a pity that the article itself has not addressed all of these issues in what the nom considers a timely manner, but his timeline for improvement is not Wiki's, and Wiki never demands that it itself be perfect. Bringing his concerns to AfD is laudable, and may now force improvement, but even that may not satisfy him ("If few new legitimate elements were added to the article, I'd still argue to WP:AVOIDSPLIT"), (Sorry, but I DID read the entire nomination summary). As for the name being an "unlikely search term", I found enough even through google to show that it is not. Schmidt, 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I reviewed the added content and found less than 2.5 kB worth of non-redundant information (most of which is the refs themself), which I have added to the main article while paying particular attention to rephrase the sources so that the COPYVIO and GFDL don't apply and doesn't necessitate an {{R from merge}}. The main article is now 14.5 kB big, still in the lower part of WP:SIZE's 1-40 KB range of prose size where "Length alone does not justify division", which is exactly the point of AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as unjustifiable spinout per the well-formulated and presented nom. Eusebeus (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons listed last time. Also there is enough information to warrant its own article, and it has a reference section. Dream Focus 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no utility in merging, the material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The information in this article that isn't either plot duplication of the parent article, original research, or just flat out unsourced, amounts to the following:

    Virginia Lewis is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the Hallmark Entertainment's, and NBC's 2000 cult miniseries The 10th Kingdom by Simon Moore. She is played by Kimberly Williams. Ron Wertheimer describes Virginia as "that plucky waitress...on her way to self-confidence." John Levesque writes that "Kimberly Williams is annoying yet somehow captivating as Virginia."

    The portrayer information, as well as the 17 words of critical reception, fit easily and handily into the 10th Kingdom article. — pd_THOR | 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • By that same argument, all of wiki could be set as a 3 word redirect: "Misplaced Pages: See Britanica". How one trims something and how it is then sourced is a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as MichaelQSchmidt has offered a pretty good rebuttal to the nomination. Now here's what we have in this case:
    • 1. WP:PRESERVE - at least the reception section is mergeable as even the above editor who despite the bolded delete agrees as well as the first bolded delete who also says it can be covered elsewhere.
    • 2. WP:N - concerns the main character in a multi-part show that aired on a major network is played by an actress worthy of a Misplaced Pages article and that has been made available on DVD as well
    • 3. WP:V - subject can be verified through multiple Google News and Google Books hits that include The New York Times and TV Guide, which discounts the first bolded deletes claims of "lacks any sources."
  • In an instant such as this, we should be able to at least agree on a merge and redirect with edit history intact as the article is clearly a valid search term for those who created and worked on the article as well as those who come here to read it. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Argument (1) could always be used to defy any merger attempt, so it doesn't have much weight for a particular article either. Argument (2) is rather subjective considering that WP:N calls for sufficient sources (since the article isn't even C-Class, I'd be wary to call the present sources "sufficient"). Argument (3) ignores much of my deletion rationale where I specifically said that the available sources and the main article together do not justify a WP:SPLIT. I would have been fine with a merger (by someone else; I didn't see mergeable content myself) or a redirect the first time around (and am still), but the past AfD result and the continued article restorations defeated attempts to implement these changes without an AfD (and the alternatives of an RfC or dispute resolution would simply have been overkill). – sgeureka 13:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The sources demonstrate the topic is notable by providing some in-depth critical discussion of the character, and all of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. Moreover, the article passes User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable, which probably has more consensus behind it anyway than the divisive WP:FICT, which has had so many versions, this probably passes at least some of them. And the bottom line is that there is no consensus to delete this article. After all notability is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because if we go by any reasonable inclusion criteria, i.e. it is verified in multiple reliable secondary sources and appeared in a multi-part series on a major network that got a DVD release, we would obviously keep, as has happened twice before already (note both closed as "keep," not "merge and redirct," or even "no consensus" in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christine White). I can somewhat understand renominations when something was deleted but recreated or the close was "no consensus", but we have two "keep" closes already and no one can deny that the article has improved since then. What is more, are video interview with the actress, too ( and for example). Wasn't one of the compromises of WP:FICT that we can use such DVD interviews as a reliable source for these sorts of articles? Anyway, please note that I have been making numerous revisions since nomination: . At this point, the right thing to do would be to not have a deletion discussion when the community has twice spoken already against redlinking and most of the bolded deletes within this discussion actually call for merges, which means we can't deleted per the GFDL. Given the suggestions by some in the first AfD for creating a character list as some sort of compromise, I strongly encourage you to withdraw this nomination and start a merge discussion concerning such a list. When I have more time, I would gladly help, but per WP:PRESERVE, we absolutely do not delete cited material that has any potential for mergers or redirects. Best, --A Nobody 04:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete As nothing has been shown that this character is notable in the real world. Notability isn't inherited from a notable show to its characters. Each subject in itself must meet WP:N by being the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable, third-party sources, and nothing in this article, or in my searches, has shown that it meets WP:N. This article also violates WP:WAF as its written from an in-universe perspective. Everything mentioned about her from the real-world has only been a trivial mention. There hasn't been a degree of discussion about her that warrants an encyclopedia article. Most of this information shouldn't be preserved as its not encyclopedic. The in-universe plot summary is much too long per WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. No offense to Michael Q Schmidt, but no amount of cleanup in the world can magically make a subject fit for an encyclopedia if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and isn't discussed adequately in the real-world. The other material can be cited and look nice, but its still inappropriate. Verifiability != Notability. A redirect would also be acceptable, but I doubt that many people would search "Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom)" and Virginia Lewis already redirects to the 10th Kingdom. ThemFromSpace 20:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • An argument for proper cleanup, not deletion. That you do not belive it can be done, does not mean it cannot be so done in the time constraints Misplaced Pages allows for such. And again, as for the name being an "unlikely search term", I found enough even through google with exactly THAT search term diff diff to show that it is not an unlikely one. Schmidt, 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete no independent sources that establish independent notabilty for this fictional personage. Redirect to the show after delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as the main character in a TV series, some of the printed (but not online) sources will discuss the character in an out-of-universe fashion. This highlights the importance of printed material Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per A nobody and Michael, noting the cleanup and sources added. Ikip (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as improved--there are now, considerably to my surprise, enough sources. (I had advised A Nobody it wasn't worth working on, but I was wrong). DGG (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The nominator's statement indicates that he thinks that the article should be redirected not deleted because this is what he has just tried. Bringing the matter to AFD again after failing to establish consensus for that redirection/merge seems an abuse of process contrary to WP:GAME/WP:POINT. The topic is clearly notable as the sources demonstrate. The organisation of the material and which article it belongs in is not a matter for AFD, being instead a matter for ordinary content editing. AFD is not dispute resolution and per WP:BEFORE should only be used for hopeless cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • There are only two ways to handle redundant subarticles that have no content to merge. Gentle und undramatic redirecting (didn't work), or a dramatic AfD. Unless someone presents a third option, I guess I'll just have to accept my damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation on my quest for a better wikipedia. – sgeureka 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources don't demonstrate the topic is notable, the sources demonstrate that The 10th Kingdom is notable. I'd like to seem some in-depth critical discussion of the character, but none of the reviews cited establish her as necessarily notable. AniMate 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    Then just a matter of adding sources per WP:CLEANUP and per WP:ATD. Deletion diminishes wiki. Schmidt, 05:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Note this AfD has been canvassed by one of the editors here. ThemFromSpace 07:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice above he actually posted "Note: This debate has been included at Talk:Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Talk:Christine White, Talk:The 10th Kingdom Ikip (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009(UTC)" That does seem like an odd way of doing it. The articles are all related, so those involved in one, would want to know of the others I suppose. Wasn't done in secret, since he mentioned it four days ago, when two of these other articles were up for deletion too. Dream Focus 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked Ikip for canvassing. the wub "?!" 10:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Three impartial, neutral, friendly notices, do not a canvas make... and such courtesy is fully supported by guideline. Schmidt, 05:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, notability has not been established as required. Verbal chat 12:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    Neither WP:PERNOM nor WP:JNN are valid reasons for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    It's a good thing I didn't use those, or WP:DICK. Sincerely, Verbal chat 08:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    U can haz Badger-ring… I'll go find it sometime. Jack Merridew 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    What I'm sure you meant to say was "An essay suggests that WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN are not strong arguments." Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge without prejudice to normal editorial process undoing the merge if consensus considers it appropriate. Direct merge should generally be used to accomplish the goals of this AfD, and then normal process followed in the event of conflict over merge. Far less disruptive than AfD, more likely to result in stable consensus. As noted, merge would allow efficient restoration of the article if better coverage appears in RS. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. And here we have the problem of Misplaced Pages reduced to one afd. The article is contentious to teh community, and good faith efforts to edit the page become confrontational because neither party will compromise. The plot borders on entertainment as opposed to information and also borders on copyright violation, if not going beyond. However, how likely is it the plot summary could be reduced? If it can't be, and the article still proves contentious... we're basically just gaming the system and turning Misplaced Pages into a battleground by insistences on black and white absolutes which can't be entertained and respect WP:CONSENSUS. I pity the admin who has to close tis, because no-one is engaing with teh actual issues that face the article. It's just become the latest venue to have a fight. Best of luck with it. Hiding T 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per excellent, well-reasoned nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    And with respects, the opinions to keep are themselves well-reasoned and support the continued improvement of wikipedia... for the readers and the future of a paperless encyclopedia. Schmidt, 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as Non-notable fancruft. The reception section states that someone said "Kimberly Williams is doe-eyed and pretty" and that's what this piece of shite article is about; fans of a hottie prattling-online. Use the "doe-eyed" bit in Kimberly Williams (which does not mean 'merge'). sgeureka and others have covered all teh good reazons twoz delete; juz dooz-zit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
that the character is simplistic, and the whole work derivative, does not detract from notability, or give a reason for contempt of the articles. I am as little a fan of this as anyone is likely to be, but then I dont expect most people here to be fans of some of the stuff I like. The presentation of the plot gives information about the plot--viewing it might conceivably give entertainment, but merely reading the bare plot could not possibly --whether or not one liked the series. Nor is this very rough outline anything like copyright vio. Even for doe-eyed, that remarkably trite method of visual characterization, any pleasure is perhaps seeing it, not reading about it. The few short quotes are used appropriately. all this article really needs is sources for the generalizations in "personality and traits". DGG (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge (with preference to the former) per excellent, well-reasoned nomination countered by inapplicable and badly argued arguments. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a notable character of a notable series. Also the article is too large to be merged in The 10th Kingdom unless we trim it significantly. However, I see no reason to trim it down since the article is properly sourced. Laurent (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The sources cited refer to the series as a whole — there is no coverage or consideration of this character in particular, depriving it of the real-world notability that our inclusion guideline requires. Merging would not be suitable; given the history of this page I would expect it to be demerged against consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. No worthy independent content, no notability attested by outside sources. Dahn (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Update. Hiding touches upon a good point. This AfD has now become the subject of two ANI threads and it is pretty clear that there is a degree of bad faith and inaccuracy in some of the above as relates to these ANI threads. It is also clear that there absolutely is no consensus to delete. Thus, rather than persist in augmenting any animosity here, we should be able to do what Hiding suggests, i.e. come to a reasonable compromise. Clearly a good segment of our editors and readers believe these articles are Wikipedic, hence, why they were kept in two AfDs already and why there is no consensus to delete this third time. As such I have started a location where we can merge (no, I have not yet merged this particular character's article yet) and a discussion at Talk:List of 10th Kingdom characters. Character lists are a sound way to compromise on these sort of things and if we use the many interviews, previews, and reviews of the mini-series that discuss the characters as a whole, we have a good chance to develop such a list into three sections: 1) on development; 2) the list of characters; and 3) on reception a la what I did when I revised this particular character's article. Plenty of out of universe information exists and it is undeniable that these characters are indeed notable as a whole. So, let's follow Hiding's suggestion and work together on this compromise solution. Regards, --A Nobody 16:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    Blessed are the peacemakers. Schmidt, 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    For future reference: file an ANI report then use it as a reason for shutting down the AfD... If you can improve the page, fine, but I don't see it yet. Verbal chat 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to 10th Kingdom or the list article. As has been pointed out previously, the sources here are also in the main article. There is, in my opinion, insufficient mention of this character in those sources to justify a stand alone article; however, deletion clearly is not appropriate. I see no reason why this can't be merged back to the main article given the identical sourcing. Xymmax So let it be done 13:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Until peaceful route to a "characters of" article is created. Also a suggestion to look for likely redirects of other character names so newby articles don't create more problems. Fictional subjects are some of our finest articles and there's no reason that compromises can't be sought that address the needs of our readers and adheres to policies. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
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.