Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Dawson

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 merge and redirect. High-grossing films are not permitted to buy off Wikipedians. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic characters

• Jack Dawson
• Rose DeWitt Bukater
• Caledon Hockley
• Fabrizio De Rossi
• Spicer Lovejoy
• Ruth DeWitt Bukater
• Tommy Ryan (Titanic character)

Those characters have only appeared in one film, and their articles are simply redundant summaries of plot. Specifically, WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." and WP:FICT: "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." Other problems include sourcing and in-universe prose. Interrobamf 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, per Danny. Guy 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, a standard procedure for such cases of fancruft. `'mikkanarxi 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Have we forgotten that this is the highest grossing movie in history? A movie this huge has more than enough written about it to support all of these articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That doesn't quite overturn WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Interrobamf 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Then we can edit to fix the former, and I don't believe these violate the latter. Deletion isn't the answer here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read. "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Interrobamf 13:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Jienum 13:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC), If these pages must be deleted, then there's no point in merging them with the Titanic article since their pages are brief summaries of the plot. They might as well be deleted.
• Merge and redirect now if we can apply these sensible rules to the Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Simpsons, and Pokemon universes. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Those characters do have more substance beyond a single film, though. Interrobamf 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it. Rose gets her own page, and this is a really big movie.Duinemerwen 21:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Really big movie" doesn't nullify policy and guidelines. Interrobamf 13:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep these articles. This is the biggest movie of our time! Martinurquhart 09:39, 13 November 2006 (GMT)
  • Is User:212.219.248.235. Either not logged on or impersonating Martinurquhart. Again, "biggest movie of our time" isn't a decent argument against enforcing policy. Interrobamf 13:01, 13 November 2006 (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.