Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Bucketsofg 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Rousseau

Danielle Rousseau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously, it had been decided that only Lost characters who were credited as "starring" (i.e. Jack, Eko) or had flashback episodes devoted to them (i.e. Rose, Bernard) would be given an article. Numerous attempts were made to create a page for Danielle Rousseau, who has appeared in over 10 out of over 60 episodes of Lost. Recently the page has been created again without discussion. I propose that the information on the page be merged into Characters of Lost, the article be deleted and then turned into a redirect to Characters of Lost (for easier navigation through Lost articles on Wikipedia). If this AfD fails, then pages should be created for a few other recurring characters, most notably Tom, who has been in more episodes than Rousseau, Rose or Bernard. See also these current and previous discussions: Talk:Characters_of_Lost#Danielle_Rousseau, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost), Talk:Characters_of_Lost/Archive02#.22Main.22_Characters, Talk:Danielle Rousseau, Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive 4 and Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive05. Vote and discuss now! --thedemonhog 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - A highly notable character, Rousseau meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), not to mention Wikipedia:Article size as well. Wikipedia is also not paper. The argument presented that if Rousseau gets an article, then others should as well, is just flawed argumentum ad ignorantiam. Perfectly encyclopaedic, I should point out the nominator also gives no deletion rationale.. Matthew 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, merge+delete is inappropriate. I suggest the nom decide what he wants first - a merge or a deletion, and we take it from there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Very Notable character, also, there have been articles on Star Trek ships that only appeared in about 1 episode etc, so I see why not for Danielle.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Matthew already said why. - Peregrine Fisher 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Danielle is as notable as Ben and arguably more than Juliet (and definitely Rose and Benard). I should also point out that Ben hasn't had a flashback episode yet (although he is apparently going to have one in May). Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Another point: in the links you've given, there is no consensus that she shouldn't have her own article - in fact, there's more consensus for her to have her own article. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Matthew. More notable than Nikki and the other one. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Notable character on a notable television show.--TBCΦtalk? 23:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Matthew and AnemoneProjectors. And from the looks of current episodes, she's going to feature quite majorly for a while yet Tphi 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Only main characters should have articles for themselves, unless they've had flashbacks (why Rose and Bernard have a page each). -- SilvaStorm
  • Comment Though its important to have guidelines, the logic behind those is now out-dated. What if Rousseau doesn't get a flashback for another season or so? The character is deserved of its own article already - far more so than, say, Nikki (Lost), despite a flashback for N&P on the horizon. Just my two cents. Tphi 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above reasons and character notability. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close this is a content dispute. If you don't believe a standalone article is appropriate, but do support a merge, then you want to use the {{merge}} template instead. Since I don't see an actual problem with this article's contents, I see no reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Cburnett 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep She's an important character in the storyline.--Gonzalo84 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep I was about to make a page for this character since I think it has been a long time coming. She is an important character and needs her own page. -- UKPhoenix79 09:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We're gonna learn more about her anyway.- JustPhil 11:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant recurring character, played by a major name actress, who is pivotal to the plot. --Elonka 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, she is important to the plot and a notable aspect of the show, also, Tom has his own page. Nikki and Paulo have their own articles but no flashback episode (although this is about to change), and are credited as guest stars by ABC. ShadowUltra 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: I created the Tom page after I saw how this "debate" was going. Nikki and Paulo are credited as main cast on-screen. Also, I should have suggested a merge instead of a delete, but this was my first deletion nomination so now I know. --thedemonhog 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I, the nominator of this deletion, created some of those pages after I saw how this was going. --thedemonhog 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - her character plays some significance to the show. Her appearance is as crucial as those of the main characters.Thricecube 01:18, 15 March 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.