Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Tyrell (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. Original research and redundancy with other articles are resolvable problems and irrelevant to the scope of AfD. There is no consensus to delete the article, and as is pointed out, to merge in any substantial sense would be contrary to community guidelines. Skomorokh 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dorian Tyrell
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character is from a single film, and notability is not asserted in any way. The plot summary is massive and completely redundant to the main article, and the rest is original research. TTN (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Delete Villain of a singular film, the bits about what they intended to do with the character could be put to some use in respective articles if sourced.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- TTN (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * that's a merge--we need to keep the history if we reuse the content.   DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No DGG, that's common sense. Even the worst of articles can have some content salvaged from them and should in many cases. You tend to look at things too black-and-white in this regard, no offense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article concerning a major character in a blockbuster film series is verifiable through published books, including even a print encyclopedia (note first hit at Google books), i.e. no reason why we would not at worst try to improve first per WP:BEFORE or merge and redirect per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * keep as the main antagonist in a major work. There's a problem with merge--  the Film WikiProject has decided that its guidelines for content to not permit section on characters, individual or combined,  except as they do it in extreme summary form under "cast" with the emphasis on the performer. .  I think that's totally against the overall  consensus, but if the section were merged they would undoubtedly then delete it.    DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the content is completely duplicative of the main plot section, what exactly would you expect to be merged? The cast sections can only list a basic description of the character because that's all there is to describe. TTN (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable and sourced character - I would have said merge but DGG's note above makes me pause, as if there is a merge then referenceable material is likely to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is the main antagonist along with Niko in this film. This article was merged before but all the detail along with the sources were lost so I believe it is fine the way it is. Cheers. Auger Martel (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable. -- Pedro J. the rookie 03:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The character's name is Dorian Tyrell, and that's confirmed by three sources. That obviously means that the article meets WP:N's criteria of "significant coverage." I really think I should reform my ways and go create articles for every single film character in existence now that my eyes have been opened. Really, you think people wouldn't so casually just ignore a major guideline and the common fact that single film characters never retain articles. TTN (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep due to revisions, which by the way, also include placing the AfD template on the article that the nominator failed to do. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I remember this movie; it's not a major cultural reference, and I don't see any references that would contradict that. A character in a mid-rate movie hardly warrants its own article. None of those references seem to suggest the character is singularly special, let alone notable. I agree fully with TTN, and am similarly confused by how controversial this nom is. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mid-rate"? The movie grossed over $100 million dollars and spawned a sequel...  Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to ''The Mask (1994 film). Doesn't need its own article. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:54, 8 September 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.