Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Bateman

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 Merge to The Rules of Attraction. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Bateman

Sean Bateman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional character, per WP:FICT, no secondary sources available AndalusianNaugahyde 19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

?I don't think you can say this character is non-notable, as it is one of the leading characters in a well-known film and book. But I can see why a merge to The Rules of Attraction might be in order, because there's not much notability of this character independently of the film.Merkinsmum 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge (after heavy trimming) to The Rules of Attraction; there's no sign the character has notability independent of the book/film. —Quasirandom 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: When a fictive thing is not independently notable and a parent article exists (such as one for the fiction in which it exists) the obvious solution is MERGE. This really should have been handled as a proposed merge, not AfD. —Quasirandom 20:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, per WP:FICT merge is a preferred solution over deleting. —Quasirandom 00:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Quasirandom. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Quasirandom. Benjiboi 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge assuming there is considerable trimming. SorryGuy 01:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I can see arguments that the character has been in enough books to warrant a centralized article, but I don't think he quite rises to that level overall. - Richfife 15:22, 7 November 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.