Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Lillian

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 delete. I should note that the discussion at ArbCom does not cover this article as that discussion only applies to television characters per this clarification by Newyorkbrad. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Lillian

Queen Lillian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a plot repetition of a few incidents from the three Shrek movies, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete. Not notable in her own right - this is a character description and belongs in the article about the movie, not a separate article. If someone writes a Ph.D. thesis on "The transformational hermeneutics of Queen Lillian", then we can have a separate article. Please nominate all the other character articles, so we can delete them, too. Argyriou (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep due to notability of Shrek franchise, reliable secondary sources that turned up quickly and easily with a Dogpile.com search, this assertion, and the injunction. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• The motion you are referencing did not pass, there is no evidence yet that this really is the person in question, or if they have any reliable sources, as we cant just take his word on it. I'm not sure who you are trying to fool, so stop it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Enacted on 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This AfD is not about a television character, and therefore is not covered by the injunction. So far, the only person who is a party to the ArbCom case is Le Grand Roi; the rest of us are making a good-faith effort to determine the compliance of this article with Wikipedia's policies, and should not be bound by patently silly injunctions aimed at reprobate edit-warriors. Argyriou (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The case is about television episodes and fictional characters. If you look at the evidence page and workshop, you'll see that video game character articles have also been under discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I see nothing useful in the existence of this article as a separate entity. Deb (talk) 13:14, 7 February 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.