Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Kensington

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, as the consensus is leaning towards the keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanessa Kensington

Vanessa Kensington (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 first Austin Powers movie article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery. The subject of the article in question is a major character in the movie, so a redirect seems obvious. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this character appears in a major role, and so it justifies an article by itself. The minor characters hould be merged, notthe major ones. DGG (talk)

No, it doesn't. Reliable sourcing of the content in the article justifying its notability does. The article is empty of anything but plot repetition, which is means that this doesn't have any encyclopedic content, such as analysis or relevance to the real world. As every other fiction article has to comply with this, and many users work tirelessly to find, add, and improve articles with this material, it is required here too. And if there is none to be found, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, have you actually read the debate at WP:FICTION? If anything, the debate will end with the restoration of the existing requirements (as there is no consensus on basically anything) and an end to this fan boy war on our encyclopedic criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this Article be 'Pre-emptivly' deleted in accordance with what you believe the debate at WP:FICTION will result in ? Notability is proven by citations, but citations are not the only measure of notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Vanessa Kensington plays a major role in a film franchise that made $670 million in sales. I can agree that the article is lacking in content and only repeats info stated elsewhere, but it is definitely notable enough to exist. The article needs rewriting, expansion and sourcing; not deletion. Hymyly^T@C 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, notability is not inherited, so just because a character is in a big notable movie doesn't necessarily make them notable.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see what content this article has that couldn't be included here... Also, as Judgesurreal notes, just because the movie did well doesn't mean that all the characters are automatically notable. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As mentioned by Master of Puppets, there are better places for this - we don't need articles for every character in every film, there is nothing that could be in this article that wouldn't be better in the articles about the film franchise or characters. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Added a cite. There are several more on Google Scholar, let alone Google News. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Sources establishing notability have been shown to either exist or likely exist. All other problems are issues for cleanup. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the outcome of the related Felicity Shagwell debate, it's clear there is no big problem with this as a topic, although the article is not necessarily written appropriately at the moment. This is a major character. We could redirect back to one of the movie articles, but ultimately it makes sense to have the spin-off article so it's better to let it develop. Mangojuice^talk 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete No notability established, just retelling the plot. The one source given seems to be in-universe as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Mango Juice, pretty correct Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me! 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment At the moment it unfortunately seems that there will be no compromise possible at WP:FICTION, and NOT PLOT doesnt apply to characters, so if it looks like there will be sources it meets the general notability criterion. there is an academic source already, and there is probably a discussion in the various reviews. I urge those interested in this topic to help resolve this more general disagreement. We dont all have to agree on something to be policy, just agree that we are all able to live with it. DGG (talk) 18:07, 15 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.