Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aunt Bam


 * 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   delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Aunt Bam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not sure this character is notable (compared to Tyler Perry's other character, Madea). — Mike  Allen   01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Article has little to no usable info and this character is not notable at the present time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - if we have an article on every sub species of Pokemon all kinds of obscure fictional characters why not this? "Has to little" (sic) is an argument for slapping a stub tag on it, not for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see Aunt Bam's Place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument on deletion discussions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a joke (and the reason why initially it was "comment" rather than "keep"). Anyway, it's the title character of an upcoming play by a very notable writer/producer/director. Notable. As an aside there are apparently no established guidelines for fictional characters but this definitely does not fall under WP:NOT (which would be the closest to a relevant guideline here). In such a situation, all joking aside, I actually think it's quite appropriate to make comparison with standard practice on similar articles (Pokemons, Dr. Who characters, etc.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the character is not notable now it should not have an article now. — Mike   Allen   08:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The character has previously appeared in Madea's Big Happy Family. It's notable (at least by standards of current practice) now. In a couple of weeks it will get even more notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree that the character is notable because it has appeared in two stage plays.  The article will only contain plot information (that's the only information available, there are no real world information for this character).  But that's the way Wikipedia is going anyways, so who cares right? — Mike   Allen   08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, Madea's Big Happy Family started out as a "stage play" (is this bad?) but was made into a movie, Madea's Big Happy Family (film). And in fact one which made quite a bit of money (opinions differ as to its "true" aesthetic quality). If you're familiar with Tyler Perry's ouvre then you know that that's how it usually works; first a "stage play" then a movie.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. In the end, having an argument about whether it's notable is irrelevant - the only question is whether it has enough third-party sources discussing the character in depth to pass WP:GNG, and the answer is - no, it doesn't - in fact it doesn't have any. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Black Kite, clearly fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you guys actually click on the news link above? Again, the fact that the sources are not in the article is a reason to list it as a stub, not delete it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I looked at that. Every single one of those sources mentions the character as being in a production, or is just a cast list - not a single one is actually about the character.  Hence no significant coverage. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm gonna pull another OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here (which is perfectly legitimate since there is no established guideline for fictional characters -so it makes sense to compare this character to existing practice) and ask you to look at or more specifically here. Not that much difference in the amount/quality of sources is there? So why do obscure Dr. Who characters get their own Wikipedia articles but title characters from plays by one of the most financially successful modern playwrights don't? Or are you just saying that we should wait a month and then it will be okay for this article to be recreated? I don't see anyone putting up Aunt Bam's Place for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think you're not actually listening to what people are saying here; this is nothing to do with any other article. If you think the other one has problems, then stick an AfD tag on it.  And Aunt Bam's Place doesn't (currently) meet WP:GNG either and should probably also have at least a merge tag on it. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per fails just about everything. No GNG, no sourcing on the page, no assertion of notability anywhere to be seen. Even the source produced merely mentions her twice. Aunt Bam's Place should be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL. BusterD (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2011 (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.