Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie's Angels film characters


 * 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. Our policies on splitting articles are very clear: independent notability must be established through reliable sources. This requirement is not waiverable, and as such those arguing for the preservation of this article would have to present how this requirement has been met. That has not happened here. Therefore, the only possible policy-backed course of action (based on the strong arguments presented in this discussion) is to delete these articles. For those who believe this should have been closed as no-consensus, I suggest you read our policy on notability and remember that these discussions are not votes. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Natalie Cook (Charlie's Angels)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources indicate that these characters have achieved notability independent of the two films in which they appear. When they are mentioned at all it is only within the context of the films and consists entirely of rehashes of plot details. Based on the style I would almost be willing to bet that they are copyvio reposts of promotional material from the film but I can't independently verify that. Regardless, their lack of notability means they need to be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – looks like a copy vio eg from here, dated '7 years ago'. (Most of the material was added in the first edit in July 2007, 6 years ago.) Oculi (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All three pages submitted by User:TMC1982 in July 2007 match that Yahoo! Answers page, with added introductory sentences, DEFAULTSORT, categories, and two sentences about Sanders's Helen Zaas backstory. The relative timing isn't so clear: assuming that the question ID is a timestamp, the question was submitted in late April 2007 and the answer some time later, but probably by late June (6.5 years before Oculi's check and comment). My guess is that they have official promo material as their common root source. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Background sections are close to the starting text, and Fashion and Covers and techniques were added in single edits by 125.160.120.56 in March 2008 . Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not clear from TMC1982's contributions alone (no removal edit), but the individual articles were copied from . The Yahoo! Answers answer was copied from Charlie's Angels sometime between late March and . User:Khaosjr . Khaosjr has two warnings for copyvio from  and . Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Khaosjr expanded several character lists in September 2006. The writing style is consistent, and the films and TV show are diverse. The curly quotes and special character ellipses are characteristic of copy/pasting from online or from original composition in a word processor. The May 2008 synopses were labeled as Danny Peary's work in their section headings, and they were removed immediately after the warning. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge : This could be true of hundreds of other WP articles about movie characters. Copyvio material can be rewritten, removed or fixed; that is not a reason for deletion.  Note that Sabrina Duncan, Kelly Garrett, Tiffany Welles, Jill Munroe, Kris Munroe and all the other "Angels" characters also have articles.  This is not a reason for deletion, shall we next go on to hunt down all TV characters from Benjamin Sisko to Mister Ed?    Montanabw (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why yes, what an excellent suggestion, let us delete all articles for all fictional characters that do not have independent reliable sources that establish that they are independently notable separately from the fiction in which they exist. I agree whole-heartedly. Please, give us the independent reliable sources that establish that these characters are notable beyond the fiction in which they exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge - Deletion is not a good course of action for an article of this type. Deletion should only come after it is shown to be unfixable and/or unmergable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jerry, how about you go out and write some articles and learn how the real world works? You are going to waste more bandwidth trying to delete articles you personally deem unworthy than the articles take up on wikipedia's servers?   Montanabw (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

But to the topic, the searches linked above appear to return about 233,000 articles and I for one feel no need to go through in search of scholarly treatises or such. Frankly, if you want to do something other than pick on female characters, how about you try this at Pokemon? I suppose there is an argument for merging all these articles into something like List of Charlie's Angels "Angels" or something. But to delete every fictional character on wikipedia? Ebenezer Scrooge, perhaps? Montanabw (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll spend my time here as I like regardless of your sorry opinion. Whether or not I write articles (and I do) is completely irrelevant to this process and your attempt to discredit me through veiled sexism accusations would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Yes, there are lots of sources that mention these characters in the course of discussing the film's details. Find me the ones that discuss them in the sort of significant coverage required by WP:GNG, because simply totting up WP:GOOGLEHITS proves nothing. I am not out to delete every article on every fictional character, just the ones that aren't notable. That's how this chunk of the real world works. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I know we aren't WP:POINTy yet, but are we getting WP:TEDIOUS?? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but you seem to be getting dickish. Look, sorry if it bothers you that there are articles about fictional concepts that don't meet the encyclopedia's inclusion standards. But if I come across one, or more than one, that doesn't I'm going to put it up for deletion. Pruning the project of stuff that doesn't belong, and thus I hope helping to set a tone that encourages editors not to create such content in the first place, is of service to the project. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you are mostly targeting female characters as non-notable, and also failed to notify the folks who examine and set the standards for articles about fictional characters. It's also nasty to propose deletion when something as simple as a merge would solve whatever problem you are having.  I'd support merging all three into a Charlie's Angels List, and I think that is justifiable, based on the low quality of the articles.  And surely, given we have List of Hunger Games characters., List of Middle-Earth characters and the like, do you really want to delete ALL of these?  Otherwise, what is YOUR criteria here?  The fictional character articles tend to be an exception to WP:NOTABILITY overall, and seems to me they have their own guidelines. Do you think women are inherently non-notable, particularly if they are in action films? (Looks like it to me)  What next?  Will you be putting up Katness Everdeen?  (Oh, I'd just love to sit back and chew on popcorn if you tried that one).   Montanabw (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that you are making things up, accusing me of "targeting" female characters when that simply is not true. You're attempting to poison this discussion with false accusations and lies. I've also nominated and commented on some Transformers AFDs too; am I robophobic too? If you believe that the correct solution is to merge these characters into a list then you are free to argue for that result, but a list of three non-notable characters does not in my opinion make for a notable list. Please stop making personal attacks and lying.
 * Show me in WP:GNG or WP:FICT where articles about fictional characters are exempt. I'll save you the time; they aren't. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to go chasing you all over wikipedia shutting down every tendentious deletion request you make. I put my research efforts into creating articles.  I am only going to suggest that you use merge tags and other suitable methods to improve the content instead of requesting deletion -- deletion doesn't save bandwidth, an admin can re-userfy this stuff, and it is far more constructive to IMPROVE people's work instead of trashing it.   Montanabw (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, your lies can't be backed up so instead of trying to back up your lies you pull this "I can't be bothered" nonsense. Got it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An opinion is not a "lie" - and when I said I can't be bothered to sort through 233,000 google hits for you over something this minor I mean it. I think that rather than waste bandwidth arguing about the notability issue, it is an elegant solution to merge the three articles, as we have a clear guideline stating "Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article."  That solves the problem and preserves the work others have put into the articles. My opinion is that of a content creator who knows that even creating a simple start or stub-class article takes time and effort and so I like to find ways to preserve the work others have done.   I also have my opinion as to two possible motives for your mass deletionism behavior, it was based on my review of your talk page and contribs list, and I've expressed it.  That's my opinion, and it is an opinion that can be changed by your actions.  So far it has not been, but I'm always open to reassessing my views with additional evidence (how many articles have you created, anyway?  Got any DYK credits?  And GA or FA- class articles?) I encourage you to merge these articles.   Montanabw (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Charlie's Angels (film) or an all-encompassing franchise character list should one be created. There is nothing asserting notability currently. Simply asserting that there must be applicable sources from a Google search isn't helpful to anything, and it is quite likely that anything that mentions the characters would fit within the film articles without issue. TTN (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:GOOGLEHITS are not convincing arguments to keep this article.  Neither is making personal attacks on the nominator.  Instead, I suggest checking Google Books, which seems to give a few relevant hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect. There's no encyclopaedic content worth merging, just some unreferenced juvenile fansite twaddle (and, yes, probably copied from somewhere too). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think a list article has been created, but probably should be. It might all be fansite twaddle, but so is List of Pokemon characters and we all know that's the very most important thing on Wikipedia.   Montanabw (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than a list, the article for each version should handle them separately. The majority of the information is unnecessary plot information, and they have nothing relevant that makes it worth retaining any of the info. For these, the plot summaries from the two films are enough to get the gist of the characters, so there is no need for any more than that. TTN (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. These articles are largely plagiarized from their respective external links,, , and . (The underlying site http://www.charliesangels.gr appears to have closed, but it was a fansite which itself cited no sources for its claims.) After deletion, the pages can be redirected to Charlie's Angels (film). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, likely WP:Copyright violations (promotional style, placed as large single edits) inserted at or near creation and persisting through present. The pages would qualify for WP:Criteria for speedy deletion if source URLs were known. I think that the recommendations to merge suspected copyvio are irresponsible. Flatscan (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A merge does not inherently mean you blindly copy over everything, so please do not use non-AGF labels like "irresponsible." Obviously, copyvio material should go.  But here's the point:  Doesn't deletion leave no redirect at all?  Deletion can just wind up having the same article recreated later.  (I ran into this problem at a different wikiproject)  Better to just put the relevant matrial into the merged article and if a revdel is needed on a copyvio, request that.  Far less waste of bandwidth.   Montanabw (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor VMS Mosaic specified what content to merge (WP:Merge what? essay). The Background sections originate from the starting text, and the insertions of Fashion and Covers and techniques are also suspicious. Assuming that all the large additions were/are copyvio, the prose of all three articles is almost entirely and irreparably tainted (WP:Text Copyright Violations 101), and – even if some were copyvio, some not – extricating any clean content beyond the infoboxes would be very difficult. Page protection is the proper tool to prevent recreation. An IP editor can revert a redirect, and the article text can be found elsewhere on the web if deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, merge the three character articles into a "List of" article (I strongly suspect there are far more than enough RS refs discussing them as a group) keeping any non copyvio (even if that is only a summary sentence or two) and the infoboxes. At that point a redirect for each character to the list should be kept per WP:Merge. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Using WP:Revision deletion on the entire history of the pages is an excessive amount of work for a few sentences and infoboxes that can be easily rewritten from scratch. Flatscan (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "From scratch" is not that "easily" done; it's easier to work with something that has been created. Right now, I've got a re-creation of something that was deleted as non-notable in the hopper (not an imaginary character, though) and it is immensely helpful to have the old stuff userfied first. Montanabw (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Working from the old articles risks creating an unauthorized derivative work. Recreating the articles' unencyclopedic, WP:INUNIVERSE tone and zero reliable sources isn't a good thing. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought WP:Revision deletion was only used in special cases such as "the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it". After reviewing the guidelines, I see no reason for Revision deletion. In other words, please don't create a problem where none exists. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * RD1 defers to WP:Copyright problems, and WP:Copyright problems/Advice for admins recommends considering revision deletion "to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive." If there is copyvio, most of each revision of the entire histories is tainted, and participants here have expressed interest in reusing the content by merging. Flatscan (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Inclusionists make me laugh they can write characters articles with little or no reliable third person sources and when it asked they provide a source to show it should stay. They do little or nothing to improve it when its challenged they scream like babies that its notable or what about other articles if they spend as much effort looking for reliable sources to assert notability Wikipedia articles would be in a lot better state. If don't believe they pull this kind of nonsense in other wiki character debates, Dukes of Hazzards, Dark Shadows, Blake's 7 and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Dwanyewest (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Prominent characters in major shows are appropriatesubjects for articles. Thi sshould be regarded as a split, and is better than a merge because it is more likely to actually manage to retain some content. Verifiability is met, and how we divide subjects up into articles is a matter of convenience. We make our own rules. In any case, merge not deletion is appropriate. If we simply accepted these kind of articles instead of arguing each one of them, we'd have more time to write.  &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And the reliable sources that support these articles are...? There are none? Oh. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - With all the bickering and snarking, it may just be better to close it now as no consensus before people get blocked (again). The article does need a major rewrite or merged into a list, but I don't see how we get there with this AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Or in the alternative the closing admin could recognize that there are zero independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of these characters and apply the relevant guidelines and delete them. No sources = no article, or at least it should. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jerry, it is up to the closing admin to make a decision based on the arguments given here (i.e., he is not supposed to go off and make a decision based on his own view point). My point is that this entire discussion has gone beyond what a closing admin should be expected to deal with. Simply stating the same thing over and over and over and over .., again provides nothing helpful to the closing admin. At the risk of being unWP:CIVIL, that's all I'm going to say. There is nothing wrong with going to the mat in these discussions, but the arguments need to be more than "I say so" repeated over and over again. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to main article. As explained, they have no independent notability. --Slashme (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We all know whats gonna happen the inclusionist will keep these pathetic articles make no effort to find sources or make a place to merge this fancruft and deletionists will make a deletion attempt in the future and nothing changes. Mediocrity wins again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwanyewest (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WP:BRI is in place for both Jerry Pepsi and Dwanyewest here. This is the most tedious waste of time I've seen in a while. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think it's best to delete these pages and start over again, perhaps with a List of Charlie's Angels characters.  The copyright violation concerns mean that the articles would have to be stubbed anyway.   The characters have not been demonstrated to have any notability, and they are probably best off described in such a list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2014 (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.