| Revision as of 17:38, 16 April 2009 editDream Focus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,010 edits →Thomas Theisman← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:32, 16 April 2009 edit undoDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Delete''' entirely unsourced and unsourceable fan-type essay. The fictional characters "importance" to this or that novel should be reflected in those novels' plot summaries.] (]) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' entirely unsourced and unsourceable fan-type essay. The fictional characters "importance" to this or that novel should be reflected in those novels' plot summaries.] (]) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' How many books or other sources was the character found in? If more than one, and there is enough information to justify an article on its own, then I say it is clearly notable enough to have the right to exist. Listing each book the character was found in, in the reference section, should be done though. ]''' 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' How many books or other sources was the character found in? If more than one, and there is enough information to justify an article on its own, then I say it is clearly notable enough to have the right to exist. Listing each book the character was found in, in the reference section, should be done though. ]''' 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| '''Keep''', Clearly a major character Major characters in major fiction should get articles. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a very small group to wear down the opposition by working on individual fictions not all that many people here care about individually, and where they can often get a majority bit by bit against what they have proven unable to get in principle. This is based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. Considering that such is one of the glories of Misplaced Pages, I find that odd. ''']''' (]) 18:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:32, 16 April 2009
Thomas Theisman
- Thomas Theisman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 08:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Major character in a particularly notable series of fictional works, important enough to be the first character mentioned on the book blurbs for at least one of the novels . Regularly discussed in reviews of the books (e.g. ). Discussed by the author in this interview. Plenty of source material to expand beyond an in-universe plot summary. JulesH (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete entirely unsourced and unsourceable fan-type essay. The fictional characters "importance" to this or that novel should be reflected in those novels' plot summaries.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep How many books or other sources was the character found in? If more than one, and there is enough information to justify an article on its own, then I say it is clearly notable enough to have the right to exist. Listing each book the character was found in, in the reference section, should be done though. Dream Focus 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, Clearly a major character Major characters in major fiction should get articles. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a very small group to wear down the opposition by working on individual fictions not all that many people here care about individually, and where they can often get a majority bit by bit against what they have proven unable to get in principle. This is based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. Considering that such is one of the glories of Misplaced Pages, I find that odd. DGG (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Categories: