Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Creedy

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 all. No sources, all spoilers, so nothing for me to merge, but the edit histories remain for salvaging if someone can locate independent sources and add encyclopedic content. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Creedy

Peter Creedy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I am nominating all of the V for Vendetta secondary characters (with the exeception of Valerie page who apparently is the topic of a separate graphic novel) as they are mentioned to sufficient length on the main article a merge is not necessary. These pages provide little additional information and do not assert the significance of the characters outside of the fictional world Daniel J. Leivick 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Deitrich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Roger Dascombe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delia Surridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lewis Prothero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Anthony James Lilliman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)--155.144.251.120 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Brian Etheridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Conrad Heyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep I believe all these articles meet the notability criteria of being cited in non-trivial sources per WP:NOTE. Alternatively, though, we can consider deleting all other supporting characters from other works of fiction as well. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• These articles MAY barely pass WP:NOTE as they are the subject of a comic and a movie (of the same title), but they fail WP:FICT which states that secondary characters should be merged. As for deleting all other secondary characters, it would be a good idea unless they are significant in some way, which none of these are. Daniel J. Leivick 03:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mergethem all together, WP:FICT says minor characters are not notable enough to have their own page. A single page should include all the information for all these characters if it cannot fit into the V for Vandetta article.--155.144.251.120 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• This has already been done, see V for Vendetta main page. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think more info could be merged in before they are deleted.--155.144.251.120 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to V for Vendetta or a subarticle List of minor characters in V for Vendetta. --Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - far too much info to be lost.- JustPhil 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really any info here that isn't in a plot summary on a different page. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per JustPhil. Additionally, it'd be a good idea to consider WP:NOTE to supercede WP:FICT. -Toptomcat 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to V for Vendetta. Minor characters from a largely unremarkable movie don't need their own articles.--Lee Vonce 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - they are characters from a largely remarkable graphic novel. But, let's leave personal opinions out of this.- JustPhil 17:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters do not usually need articles no matter how remarkable the work of fiction that they come from. WP:NOTE may supersede WP:FICT but only if the characters are actually notable. Zero sources can be found for these characters outside of in universe fiction. I would merge only as a last resort as these characters are already mentioned with sufficient detail on the main page. These pages are merely plot summaries focused on a specific character. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) secondary characters do not warrant an article. 'Merge' would not be consistent with WP:NOT#IINFO a plot summary. The only encyclopedic info in the article is already in the main article. --maclean 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to V for Vendetta. No reason to spew articles all over Wikipdedia of nonnotable minor characters just because a movie is good. Have multiple independent articles been written about each of these characters in reliable sources? Not so you would notice from the articles. Edison 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge either to V for Vendetta or to a related 'minor characters from' page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Young Skywalker (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
• Comment: A LOT of people seem confused about this. V for Vendetta is not only, or even primarily, a movie; its primary claim to notability is as one of the best-known graphic novels of all time, having been written by Alan Moore, arguably the most notable writer in that medium. If the only form in which it existed was the frankly mediocre movie, I would also be confused about why these characters have separate pages, but that is not the case. -Toptomcat 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see any confusion. The quality of the fiction does nothing to counteract the fact that there is no valuable info in these page. They are character focused plot summaries and should be merged with the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Edison and Lee Vonce both thought it was only a movie. I thought that was a sufficiently significant subset of 'delete' or 'merge' nominators to make the comment worthwhile. -Toptomcat 03:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - article is more then just a stub, seems article worthy and notable enough. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Many articles that are much more than a stub are deleted, I don't see what makes these characters noteworthy, no sources exist outside of the fiction that they are a part of. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly not interested, I believe it's a good article, I believe it's notable, unless you can provide me with a deletion reason don't try and convince me to change to your "side" -- as a side note: I don't think anybody appreciates you leaving comments to everybody who isn't on your side of the fence attempting to undermine them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a little civility? I don't think hostility is warranted, this is supposed to be a discussion, the idea is to discuss policy as it applies to this article I am arguing my point of view not exactly trying to undermine anybody. Personally I don't see any evidence that these characters are notable outside of their own fiction. Notability is not subjective it requires sources which at this point are not available. You asked me to provide you with a reason for deletion, but I think it is pretty clear, the deletion policy on minor characters states that if they do not have some kind of notability in the real world than they should be merged. I think that the main V page has enough character detail, but I wouldn't be opposed to a minor characters page that way we could use the pictures which would be nice. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to a "minor characters" page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and review in a month. Given the allegorical nature of the V for Vendetta story, secondary characters could be more encyclopedic than the average fictional character. I do believe that these articles can be made more encyclopedic by discussing their allegorical roles (though in a verifiable way; don't want original research, of course). If, in a month, they aren't made more encyclopedic, then I would support a merge recommendation. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:22, 27 January 2007 (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.