Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartimaeus (Bartimaeus trilogy)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 04:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bartimaeus (Bartimaeus trilogy)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of the Bartimaeus Trilogy 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 the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Combine I think a good trim and combination would do the original research in this article some good. On the other hand I may be wrong. It's an extensive article. Unsourced though. I don't really know what to do with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The same reason I gave in Articles for deletion/Magic in the Bartimaeus Trilogy. Dekisugi (talk)
 * Combine or Keep obviously the Role in Trilogy section is uneccesary but does add important info to the character not found in main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beligaronia (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think its a good working rule that the hero of a major series of very popular novels is notable. The sources for the novels will inevitably talk about him to a very considerable extent. There is no requirement whatsoever that articles on fictional characters have real-world notability--obviously notability of fiction is as fiction, I ask the nom once morw to provide an explanation of "no current assertion for future improvement of the article, "  Does he perhaps mean the articles doe not specifically say it will be expanded? If that's the meaning, it's not part of our notability criteria, but an imaginary rule. DGG (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent notability established or even asserted. Eusebeus (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete since whoever is editing the article is using my IP without my permission. --64.180.240.251 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely that isn't a valid reason for deletion. Is your decision to delete based on the article or just your invaded privacy. Don't take it out on Wikipedia. --Beligaronia (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That edit was made in February 2006! IP addresses get recycled all the time, and you just happened to get one that was used to edit the article over 2 1/2 years ago. No one stole your IP address, and this is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I'd never heard of him before, this is apparently the main character of a best-selling book series, and there is plenty of reliable source coverage of the books and the trilogy—and it is logical that any coverage of the books and trilogy is going to cover the main character. "No current assertion for future improvement of the article" seems to be simply a "no effort" argument and is not a valid reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 23:49, 17 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.