Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Septimus Pretorius (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Non-admin closure.  Jamie ☆ S93  18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Septimus Pretorius
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of Bride of Frankenstein. There is real world information in the article, but it is already included within the main article under a wider scope (Bride of Frankenstein). The rest of the information is just redundant plot and mentions of very minor appearances in other works that I really don't see providing any sort of relevant information. TTN (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominator seems to have something of a grudge against this article. It seems rather nonsensical for him to claim that there is no independent notability beyond the film when he himself added information about how the character has made appearances in other media outside the film. Otto4711 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If they were major works meant to further expand on the character and provided information that is relevant to the real world, that would be asserting notability beyond the film. Instead, the character is borrowed along with a ton of others in one novel, which is really too trivial to mention, and he is used in Frankenstein's Aunt Returns, which possibly doesn't even relate to the film character at all outside of the name (it's trivial either way). If they really need to be mentioned anywhere, there is plenty of space in the main article. TTN (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Within the context of the film as a whole, they are trivial. Within the context of the character, they are not, any more than alternate versions of many characters that are noted within their character articles are trivial. Otto4711 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple versions of characters are only noted if they're major popular icons, such as Frankenstein or the monster. Even in that case, they do not mention every single case that they are used, usually omitting completely trivial ones. In this case, you have Judgment of Tears, a crossover unofficially borrows many characters from many different pieces of media. Things like that and more recent types like the show Robot Chicken are not mentioned in the articles that they borrow from, instead just remaining self contained. I'd like to note that only a couple other characters link to the novel. Then you have Frankenstein's Aunt Returns, which is the second of a series that borrows from the pieces of Frankenstein media. That is also something that would not be mentioned within specific character articles. TTN (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you show me where what you've said above is based in policy or guideline? Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you really going to just cop out with that argument? Policies and guidelines do not go so specific that I can just link to a part of a one and leave it at that. The article is currently redundant to the main article, so it does not establish notability per WP:N. You're claiming that having two minor mentions satisfies it, so you should be the one explaining anyway. TTN (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not copping out on anything. You're the one making a declaration about what does and doesn't get included in articles, yet I've seen plenty of articles that mention Robot Chicken and other minor mentions. Otto4711 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is nothing specific that you're going to find in policies or guidelines. The closest thing would be to cite WP:UNDUE and the common practice of removing trivial things like Robot Chicken mentions (they're generally added back by anons at a faster rate, though). TTN (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Large number of book sources, most of which look non-trivial. Plus the article isn't horribly sourced as it stands. Hobit (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The works discussing a character do not have to be major works--that requirement is a pure invention, having no place in Wikipedia guidelines or policy. And I think the ed. who proposed that in this discussion admitted as much. They just have to provide non-trivial coverage. This is usually defined as meaning something ore than a mere listing. Many  It means something more than saying only "among the other characters in this story are .... "  It seems clear there are plenty of ones that do. Fiction is part of the real world--cinema and video productions are substantial things.   The requirement for out of universe means only that a one cant talk about the characters if the fictional world were real--some extremely naive articles actually do just that, and it isn't acceptable. But that's all it means. I see the trend: first claim no sources. when proven wrong, claim no non trivial sources. when proven wrong, claim no significant source, then no major sources, then, I suppose, no full length monographs devoted to the subject. An absurd claim, which would give us a very small encyclopedia indeed. DGG (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge (updated, see below) Covered in significant detail by independent, reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to expand my comment here. I don't have a problem with merging this or redirecting it, given that the content is included in a parent article.  My point was that the in-universe information was covered by sources independent from the film-makers.  I read WP:PLOT narrowly to man that we shouldn't focus editor attention on plot details that aren't covered in reliable, independent sources.  I don't read it to mean that all fictional articles must have some real world impact, though this is almost always what prompts significant coverage of the material.  In other words, Rosencratz and Guildenstern get covered in independent sources pretty heavily, but that coverage is critical interpetation of the characters (in the main)--this does not mean that "plot" material sourced to those sources can't be included in the article. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment After seeing Bride of Frankenstein with a friend the other day and running across this, I'm wondering if this article is really needed beyond a redirect or if the salvageable info may be better off combined into the film's article under development, reception and legacy. The current article for the character nominated here is pretty much mostly the plot for the film, and when you remove that, well...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- wasn't this guy told to stop deleting for a while? He really should have been banned again by now.JJJ999 (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, no. And please be WP:CIVIL and discuss the article and not the nom. MuZemike  ( talk ) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets usual notability standards; no obvious reason to take exception to them here. Wily D 14:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability has been established. Matthew (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — it looks like the sources listed are independent of the subject, so I have to side with the majority here. It's also starting to WP:SNOW in early November. MuZemike  ( talk ) 23:31, 3 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.