Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Morgan


 * 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 Ring (2002 film). This is a tough call, and a "no consensus" close might have sufficed, but merging seems like a reasonable option given the various arguments advanced during the discussion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anna Morgan

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

Horror movie character with no third party reliable sources attesting to notability that I could find. Naturally, the name is common, and this article stands in the way of the possible creation of an article about a real person with true notability. Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least there is a journalist and author of the same name and a pornographic actress. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — per Abductive. non-notable, unsourced, no real-world impact. as a common name, a redirect would be inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Google shows plenty of mentions of her in the movie "The Ring".  She has played a notable role in a notable film.  The article shows also how her character was changed in two other versions of the film.  This is also the character that was the first breakthrough role for a notable actress, Shannon Cochran.   D r e a m Focus  04:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "This is also the character that was the first breakthrough role for a notable actress" -- I don't see any evidence for that anywhere aside from your assertion. I fit were true and made the character notable I would expect sources to exist.
 * At the article for her, it says that is what she is recognized for. See Shannon_Cochran.   D r e a m Focus  01:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its unsourced there and I don't think that we can use a wikipedia article as the source for another. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be treated in the article of the fictional work. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge to film article. No need for this; unlike many other fictional characters, this one is not suff. notable in itself.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Salon article that MQS found is the best I think so far; but I don't think that it establishes the notability of the character suff. to warrant an article. Still think best to merge to film or wherever best. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete — per Abductive. no cultural impact, no discussion in secondary sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reason why? This isnt a straw poll after all. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No references exist. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No references exist??? After reading the comments above, I went and had a look for references myself. They do exist. The character is being discussed. Imagine my surprise.  Article has now been improved since the last comments above... and depending on how one searches, much more is available.  The article should be further expanded and have additional sourcing. Yes, it might actually take a little work, but that's okay. No need to fold into the parent if the WP:Spinout can source itself properly. Even though AfD is not for cleanup, if an article can be improved through normal editing it should be. Deletion is meant to be a last resort for something only if unsalvagable.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I misspoke; no references that establish notability for this character. Mentions exist. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * merge  I don't think she;'s the central figure in the movie. She 's an important character, but the best way to deal with character articles is usually to merge, keeping all non-duplicative content.  The only films where we should keep separate articles on all important characters are the important classics or major award winners. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line for that, but this is below it.  No real reason not to merge; I think that the film project considers it unsuitable to have separate sections on characters in even the main articles, and I assume they equally object to combination articles for characters. I think in both respects they are against the broader consensus for fiction in general that both of these can be acceptable content.  Certainly there is no other genre where we always or generally  oppose character sections in the main article or merged character articles.  (The argument about the name is a straw man--when such an article appears, it's easy to modify this one).    DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into The Ring TomCat4680 (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no disagreement with a proper merge. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to movie. Not enough for a seperate article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Nothing worth merging anywhere as the plot is sufficiently covered in the movie article. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Anything worth keeping can be merged to parent article, but notability independent of the film has not been shown. Quantpole (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2009 (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.