Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Shagwell

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. Mangojuice^talk 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Felicity Shagwell

Felicity Shagwell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article establishes no notability ( WP:FICTION) through reliable sourcing (WP:RS) and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition (WP:WAF) that is also duplicative of the plot section in the second movie article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. Because the subject of the article in question is a major character in only this film, a redirect seems obvious. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It doesn't seem obvious to me that we should be redirecting major characters. Minor characters, maybe. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I couldn't have said it better, Coccyx. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep nomination in apparent ignorance or indifference to the actual guidelines. RSs for characters or plots in fiction are the fiction themselves, plot summary means plot summary--characters are separate--and though WP:FICTION is rather sharply disputed, everyone there seems to agree that in breaking out part of a topic, it's the overall notability that matters. DGG (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

...Disputed does not mean it has gone away, and if anything the policy will be slightly modified. And it makes no sense that would say that, as notability is not inherited, and each article must stand on its own, as this must. If no referencing can be found, this should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

it has never been necessary for subarticles to stand on their own.DGG (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Every article has to be quality, even subarticles, such as Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which is a featured status, so there is no excuse for poorly written, unreferenced, or unnotable subarticles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but perhaps as a merge/redirect as suggested above. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (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.