Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Corvinus


 * 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 Underworld (film series) .  MBisanz  talk 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Corvinus

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of Underworld (film series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the plot sections of the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Underworld (film series) and merge heavily condensed plot details as per WP:FICT. Also the name itself makes for a reasonable redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all Underworld characters to new article Underworld characters and delete category. JulesH (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, category deletion is a different process. -- Banj e  b oi   15:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient non-trivial coverage of this subject from reliable independent sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (see these and these, for example) that establish notability of this notable character from the series who appears in both the film and novel. The consensus for even characters in this franchise with less notability than Alexander was to merge or redirect (see Articles for deletion/Amelia (Underworld) and Articles for deletion/Erika (Underworld)), so deleting an article on one of the main characters given that precedent would be bizarre.  Please also note that this is technically a second nomination per the earlier mass nomination at Articles_for_deletion/Selene_(Underworld).  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Copy-paste keep rationale. Several of those sources are non-independent, and there is no proof that any are non-trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Why not note copy and paste delete nomination or copy and paste delete rationale or does it only matter when it is someone who disagrees with you? Look through the sources.  I would say multiple reviews commenting on the character who appears in both a film and novelization is not trivial and given the precedent of merging even minor characters I cannot imagine why that would not be an option here.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe other editors should not be copy-pasting rationales, please bring that to the attention of the editor(s) in question. "Multiple reviews commenting on the character" have not been found - only incidental mentions of him in the course of discussion of the film plot, which is "trivial coverage" as we define it. And there is no firm precedent in merging minor characters, as you should well know from your participation in dozens or hundreds of AfDs on similar subjects which ended with a straight deletion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, don't use a "copy and paste keep rationale" ad hominem approach against me when not taking issue with those on your side of the discussion who do the same. I am happy to discuss with editors, but not to entertain hypocrisy.  And taking an ad hominem approach does nothing to build toward a consensus.  There is no firm precedent for deletion either, but in this particular case recent AfDs concerning other characters in this franchise closed as merge and redirect and given the suggestion above about merging to a character list, I see no reason why that wouldn't be a good idea.  We know from the references that have been presented the character is not made up, that he appears in a mainstream theatrical film and novelization of that film and that reviews in even multiple languages acknowledge this character, i.e. it is not merely a case of some anonymous Girl 3 or something in the credits.  If we keep this verifiable content in some manner, then we augment our coverage of this still growing franchise (a third film is on route), so it isn't as if the notability is decreasing for these characters either.  I see no benefit to the project with outright deletion here.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. I am not copy-pasting rationales, so I am not a hypocrite. You're right that there is no firm precedent for deletion either, but I did not argue for deletion on precedent. Nor is this a speedy deletion candidate, so whether it is "made up" is not in question. Whether it is of "benefit to the project" to delete stubs on fictional characters is outwith the scope of this deletion discussion, but it is certainly commonplace and thus is not out of the question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is strange to point out the style of one editor's argument when it is opposite of what you agree with while disregarding that others who agree with you took the same approach to these discussions on these particular characters, but it's not really a fair accusation of copying and pasting when in addition to posting in these threads, I also looked for and added references to the articles in question, which means the addition of different references to the respective articles. I just see nothing productive from making such a point as it has nothing to do with the merits of the article under discussion.  Thus, my contribution here goes beyond my comments in defense of the articles as I also personally worked a bit to improve the articles in question.  My feeling is that this stub is expandable and improveable and I began some steps in that direction.  I wouldn't lose sleep over a merge and redirect that retains the edit history for when additional sources turn up, which I believe is likely given that a third film is still coming out.  Considering that we will have had three films, two novels, and even a video game, the main characters will have coverage in a wide variety of media and these articles serve as a means of navigating to those different media.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're free to work on whatever you like, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of our notability requirements, which are predicated on the existence of non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. Furthermore, there is nothing untoward in me pointing out that what would appear at first glance to be a well-considered argument pertaining directly to this article had in fact been copied directly from another AfD with the names swapped - an easy way to avoid this in future is to not do so, and if it reflects badly on the arguments of other too then that's fine with me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you check the wording, it is not "exactly" the same as Michael is the more notable character thus far in the franchise, but the coverage is non-trivial enough for Alexander in multiple secondary sources that the character merits inclusion on our project in some manner, whether it is to be kept and expanded on as I believe possible or even if someone wanted to make a reasonable case for a merge and redirect for now. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. No notability outside the film but probably a searchable item -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! Just as a quick clarification, it is not a show, but a film and novel that this notable character appears in. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked better and this is a notable character in the film. It plays a centric role. I changed the text above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that. Thanks!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to whatever "List of ...", per CRUFT. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We are underway in creating a characters' article. Check User:A Nobody/Underworld characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Underworld (series) due to lack of notability. The article is not salvageable... the three references of the four in this present revision only repeat what is shown by the primary sources.  Just because secondary sources repeat the basic information does not make the figure notable.  The fourth reference about how the character is received does not qualify as significant coverage; it is merely an addition to play up this figure as if he is notable. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 04:31, 7 December 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.