Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Frost


 * 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   redirect to 2012 (film). MuZemike 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Frost

 * – (View AfD) (View log · AfD statistics)

Looks like there is not enough substantial coverage yet to meet requirements for WP:GNG or WP:FICT. Character seems to be at the center of the viral marketing campaign for the film 2012, but still not enough coverage to mandate his own page. WP:INHERITED.  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't necessary, and somebody looking for the 2012 movie won't be searching for Charlie Frost only. --68.225.205.147 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be a very big character either.  fetch  comms  ☛ 05:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Get it off, the sooner, the better, otherwise you'll be awash in "profiles" of D-list characters from crappy movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.126.246 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's nothing out there to say that he's a bigger character than Curtis Jackson, and we don't have an article about him. (Note: the link is to John Cusack.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  16:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect: There was no good reason to nominate this for deletion. The film is notable, a redirect from a character name to a film to the film itself is entirely reasonable and desirable.  This is a waste of time. - BalthCat (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: In fact it appears that's how I'm connected to this AfD. (I was poked.)  I created it as a redirect to the film. - BalthCat (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Why delete it? I am often irritated when I try to find additional information about characters in movies/tv shows/books, and I instead find that some uptight editor who is painfully unfamiliar with what Wikepedia is not has rolled all 95 characters into one bland, unfocused and non-detailed article. Why should every character be in one article? It's not as though we have to fit this encyclopedia all in one book. Make the article better so that the uptight editors are satisfied. Already there is more information contained in this profile than would be feasible to place in the 2012 article, so we should just go with it rather than deleting someone else's work. Dragonnas (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why not add an article for Curtis Jackson as well? Wikipedia should be bigger and better, not the opposite. Dragonnas (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I already stated above why I think there are grounds for deletion. In a nutshell you could say that it's almost entirely written from an in-universe persepctive, and there is not enough "real world" coverage of the character to make it meet the requirements in the guidelines I posted in the nomination. Calling a nominator/editor(s) "uptight", and claiming that every character should have a their own page free from the main article simply because the character exists or that Wikipedia should include more (or everything) are not enough reasons to rouse any notability for this character. -  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  08:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling a person who displays uptight behaviour uptight is not an ad hominem attack. It is an identification of behaviour. I disagree of your citing of WP:ADHOM because I feel that it is used itself as an Ad hominem attack in this circumstance. Your ability to cite wiki project guidelines does not invalidate my statement. While I agree with your citing of WP:BHTT and I was unaware of that guideline, your citation of WP:ITEXISTS is in my opinion without merit. The character of Charlie Frost is neither more nor less notable than the movie he is in. If the movie is notable, then the characters in that movie derive their notability or lack thereof solely from said movie. I disagree with your citation of WP:EVERYTHING for the same reason, in fact it seems like those two guidelines are essentially the same rule when used for this purpose. I'm sorry if my respectful disagreement with your opinion comes across like an ad hominem attack, but that latin statement itself does not make my opinion invalid. Dragonnas (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * merge  to the film at the least, at about the same length,  in a proper characters section if not worth a main article.  There would never be a reason not to have a redirect for a significant character in an important movie. Note that mentioning all the other fictional characters we don;t have articles on is as much an argument for writing those articles as deleting this one. But it does not matter as much whether we have it as a separate article or not, as that we have the information. The listing in the main article is totally insufficient.  If the people working in that area have a guideline that prohibits adequate sections for the characters, then merge to a separate characters article, or decide that the guideline -- which is totally opposed to what we do for other forms of fiction--does not have the general consensus of the community. If we cannot obtain consensus on one of these as a general issue, then the alternatives are to remove the information or have many otherwise unnecessary separate articles. since we're a general encyclopedia, not a condensed and idiosyncratic guide to the movies, then the choice has to be to retain the information in whatever form necessary.    DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon a second look...if not deleted, I think a redirect would be the next best option. Either way, there is no need for this article: The 2012 page already contains the same real world information that is explained in the nominated article. -  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  08:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect - Charlie is a major character in the film but should not have his own article, due to the fact that we would have to write about 20 stubs just to cover everyone in the film that plays a major part. I propose we merge these characters, including Charlie, into a new article (perhaps Major characters in 2012?) and turn this article into a redirect to the characters' article. Of course, we could also do a characters section in the film's article. However, I would do anything but get rid of this information as Charlie, once again, plays a major part in the movie. 7OA   chat  01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- Random characters in random films don't warrant an article of their own. Important characters in established franchises do, but simply being in a film doesn't mean you deserve one. It makes the encyclopedia sort of, well, uneven, to randomly include articles about stuff when other things that are equally notable don't. This article simply isn't notable enough in my opinion.220.239.227.28 (talk) 10:05, 13 December 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.