Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mick Taylor (fictional character)
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 of the debate was no consensus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mick Taylor (fictional character)
Delete, nn San Saba 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Шизомби 22:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; also, pretty poorly written. _-M
oP-_ 23:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) - Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and move for cleanup. Fairly notable, but badly written. I encourage editors to clean it up (I won't, because horror films tend to distress me and I'd like to avoid getting involved), but by WP:FICT he deserves his own page (as the article is long and notable major characters deserve their own articles). Please do not respond to AfDs with "nn;" it isn't very helpful, especially if you don't mention how you've determined that the character is not notable. Captainktainer 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, as per WP:FICT "Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." San Saba 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, but please see the next sentence: "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character)." This is why I pointed that out in my comment. The Wolf Creek article has gotten somewhat long, and while the Mick Taylor article needs some work, there's plenty of material to work with for his own article. Please see the examples in WP:FICT of major characters being offloaded into separate pages. Thanks! Captainktainer 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The Wolf Creek article is not long at all. I doubt if the Taylor character merits his own article even if it were; this is a recent horror movie with no sequels, and no adaptations (books, games, comics). Шизомби 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, but please see the next sentence: "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character)." This is why I pointed that out in my comment. The Wolf Creek article has gotten somewhat long, and while the Mick Taylor article needs some work, there's plenty of material to work with for his own article. Please see the examples in WP:FICT of major characters being offloaded into separate pages. Thanks! Captainktainer 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, as per WP:FICT "Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." San Saba 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into the movie's article. -- Kjkolb 10:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge for now, the article at Wolf Creek (film) doesn't seem that long --Deville (Talk) 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, into film's article, no assertion of notability in its own right. --Terence Ong 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Terence Ong --
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:40, 29 April 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.
