Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia (Underworld)


 * 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 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Amelia (Underworld)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its 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. TTN (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of real-world context surrounding the character; if the character did anything of importance in the film(s), it can be mentioned in the film articles' Plot or Cast sections. — Erik (talk • contrib) 22:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge-- as I think Erik actually seems to say also--whether it is important enough to include is a content question for the talk page. As part of a merged article on these figures, the content need not show notability and can be referenced from the fiction itself. But although the article is not in my opinion appropriate for a stand alone, the nom, as usual, gives no arguments against a merge. Incidentally, what is the source for the hypothesis that characters need to show notability independent of the series ?  It's more reasonable to say that things need to show notability only in their context. DGG (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can maybe justify setting the notability bar for spinoff articles a little lower than for stand-alone articles, but this is not a free pass. You cannot say "This work of fiction is notable, therefore every character and thing with some sort of relevance within the fictional universe is immediately deserving of an article, even if there is nothing to establish notability outside the fictional universe". It just ain't so, and this article is a perfect example of why I take this stance. Reyk  YO!  01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Underworld (film series). No notability outside that universe.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just an extract of the plot involving this character, which doesn't seem to have an coverage in movie reviews. VG &#x260E; 03:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Delete. Non-notable; there isn't even a claim of notability, and no external sources. If it's simply plot re-hashing, it's not needed. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  treelo  radda  00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- Unsourced article about a minor character that consists mostly of original research and plot summary. Reyk  YO!  01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- I noticed that nominator here has also nominated two other articles viz. Soren (Underworld) and Erika (Underworld). If you read all the character articles for this film series, you'd find almost all of the articles are written in in-universe style and present no real world reference. Not even the article for the main character. I'd suggest creating a separate article that deals with entire set of characters and redirecting all current articles to it. Of course, if some editors feel they can develop an article separately, fulfilling necessary notability and providing broader coverage, they can do so. Otherwise, I see no difference in structure and content-type of all these articles. LeaveSleaves talk 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you are suggesting a merge.DGG (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you can say that. I am definitely not supporting keep. I don't see any importance of writing articles that simply reiterate plot from individual character point of view. But if someone feels the need for such information, particularly since this is film series, that's fine. I wanted to gauge what others felt about the idea of a single article instead of so many. LeaveSleaves talk 06:06, 6 November 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.