Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie's Angels film characters: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:31, 1 January 2014

Natalie Cook (Charlie's Angels)

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

No reliable sources indicate that these characters have achieved notability independent of the two films in which they appear. When they are mentioned at all it is only within the context of the films and consists entirely of rehashes of plot details. Based on the style I would almost be willing to bet that they are copyvio reposts of promotional material from the film but I can't independently verify that. Regardless, their lack of notability means they need to be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – looks like a copy vio eg from here, dated '7 years ago'. (Most of the material was added in the first edit in July 2007, 6 years ago.) Oculi (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This could be true of hundreds of other WP articles about movie characters. Copyvio material can be rewritten, removed or fixed; that is not a reason for deletion. Note that Sabrina Duncan, Kelly Garrett, Tiffany Welles, Jill Munroe, Kris Munroe and all the other "Angels" characters also have articles. This is not a reason for deletion, shall we next go on to hunt down all TV characters from Benjamin Sisko to Mister Ed? Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, what an excellent suggestion, let us delete all articles for all fictional characters that do not have independent reliable sources that establish that they are independently notable separately from the fiction in which they exist. I agree whole-heartedly. Please, give us the independent reliable sources that establish that these characters are notable beyond the fiction in which they exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Off topic personal attacks and bickering

Jerry, how about you go out and write some articles and learn how the real world works? You are going to waste more bandwidth trying to delete articles you personally deem unworthy than the articles take up on wikipedia's servers? Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But to the topic, the searches linked above appear to return about 233,000 articles and I for one feel no need to go through in search of scholarly treatises or such. Frankly, if you want to do something other than pick on female characters, how about you try this at Pokemon? I suppose there is an argument for merging all these articles into something like List of Charlie's Angels "Angels" or something. But to delete every fictional character on wikipedia? Ebenezer Scrooge, perhaps? Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll spend my time here as I like regardless of your sorry opinion. Whether or not I write articles (and I do) is completely irrelevant to this process and your attempt to discredit me through veiled sexism accusations would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Yes, there are lots of sources that mention these characters in the course of discussing the film's details. Find me the ones that discuss them in the sort of significant coverage required by WP:GNG, because simply totting up WP:GOOGLEHITS proves nothing. I am not out to delete every article on every fictional character, just the ones that aren't notable. That's how this chunk of the real world works. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know we aren't WP:POINTy yet, but are we getting WP:TEDIOUS?? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you seem to be getting dickish. Look, sorry if it bothers you that there are articles about fictional concepts that don't meet the encyclopedia's inclusion standards. But if I come across one, or more than one, that doesn't I'm going to put it up for deletion. Pruning the project of stuff that doesn't belong, and thus I hope helping to set a tone that encourages editors not to create such content in the first place, is of service to the project. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that you are mostly targeting female characters as non-notable, and also failed to notify the folks who examine and set the standards for articles about fictional characters. It's also nasty to propose deletion when something as simple as a merge would solve whatever problem you are having. I'd support merging all three into a Charlie's Angels List, and I think that is justifiable, based on the low quality of the articles. And surely, given we have List of Hunger Games characters., List of Middle-Earth characters and the like, do you really want to delete ALL of these? Otherwise, what is YOUR criteria here? The fictional character articles tend to be an exception to WP:NOTABILITY overall, and seems to me they have their own guidelines. Do you think women are inherently non-notable, particularly if they are in action films? (Looks like it to me) What next? Will you be putting up Katness Everdeen? (Oh, I'd just love to sit back and chew on popcorn if you tried that one). Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that you are making things up, accusing me of "targeting" female characters when that simply is not true. You're attempting to poison this discussion with false accusations and lies. I've also nominated and commented on some Transformers AFDs too; am I robophobic too? If you believe that the correct solution is to merge these characters into a list then you are free to argue for that result, but a list of three non-notable characters does not in my opinion make for a notable list. Please stop making personal attacks and lying.
Show me in WP:GNG or WP:FICT where articles about fictional characters are exempt. I'll save you the time; they aren't. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to go chasing you all over wikipedia shutting down every tendentious deletion request you make. I put my research efforts into creating articles. I am only going to suggest that you use merge tags and other suitable methods to improve the content instead of requesting deletion -- deletion doesn't save bandwidth, an admin can re-userfy this stuff, and it is far more constructive to IMPROVE people's work instead of trashing it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your lies can't be backed up so instead of trying to back up your lies you pull this "I can't be bothered" nonsense. Got it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :::* Show me in [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:FICT]] where articles about fictional characters are exempt. I'll save you the time; they aren't. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi|talk]]) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 ::::*I don't have the time to go chasing you all over wikipedia shutting down every tendentious deletion request you make.  I put my research efforts into creating articles.  I am only going to suggest that you use merge tags and other suitable methods to improve the content instead of requesting deletion -- deletion doesn't save bandwidth, an admin can re-userfy this stuff, and it is far more constructive to IMPROVE people's work instead of trashing it.  [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 05:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
+:::::* In other words, your lies can't be backed up so instead of trying to back up your lies you pull this "I can't be bothered" nonsense. Got it. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi|talk]]) 14:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 {{collapse bottom}}