Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slevin Kelevra

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 Lucky Number Slevin. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 05:12Z

[edit] Slevin Kelevra

Slevin Kelevra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Doesn't deserve its own page, says nothing not found on the Lucky Number Slevin page. Delete and redirect. ChronicallyUninspired 01:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the character is single-use (appearing in one film), meaning that everything in its article is directly relevant (and should appear instead) in the article for the film. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 09:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge This case is covered by a specific section WP:FICT, which states:

1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.
2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.

   The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters.

This article clearly states that "Slevin Kelevra is the main protagonist in the movie, Lucky Number Slevin. How could the protagonist be a minor role? The nominator has missed the fact that this is the main character, who is not only mentioned specifically at the Lucky Number Slevin page, but his name is also in the title. Perhaps the author of the article is being unclear; however, poor writing style is not grounds for deletion.

Has the article about the movie become too large to the point that the main character deserves a separate article?

There is no discussion as to how many films in which a character should appear inorder to be notable. The question is whether the character is Major or Minor, and in either case deletion is not an option. At least the subject should receive a merge and redirect.

--Kevin Murray 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of saying "delete" is that the Slevin Kelevra article provides no additional insight or information not provided in the Lucky Number Slevin article. In fact, the article in question here does nothing more than name the character and then go on to provide a plot synopsis of the movie, rather than providing information that extends beyond the scope of the movie. Since the movie's article provides a much more detailed plot synopsis, this article can safely be deleted, perhaps with a redirect, as the original AfD nomination states. I stand by my earlier vote of Delete. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are bringing new information to the discussion. If the article adds no value than it should be redirected, but that should be examined and discussed. --Kevin Murray 16:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - After rereading both articles, I refute Dachannien's comment about the redundancy of the two articles. However, in both cases the articles break the guidelines regarding articles containing extensive restatements of the plots. I think that a well thoughtout merge is in order. As my suggestion was to keep or merge, I would more strongly advocate a merge predicated on a complete rewrite of the Lucky Number Slevin article. Short of someone taking on that task, I would advocate a keep in the mean time. --Kevin Murray 16:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update I have merged the valuable aspects of this article describing the protagonist into the article Lucky Number Slevin, so that Dachannien's assertion of redundancy is now valid, and suggest that someone make sure that any valuable plot information be transferred as well. Then there should be a Redirect rather than a deletion. Unless someone can demonstrate a reason to expand this article. --Kevin Murray 16:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge, and "plot information" is not especially encyclopedic. 67.117.130.181 02:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:12, 28 December 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.