Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kozak


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Kozak

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, as characters appearing in only a single work of fiction fail WP:FICT unless there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources. Since this article cites no sources, notability and verifiability cannot be established. It is merely an expanded plot summary and thus fails WP:NOT, as the plot is already summarized in the article on the film itself. I do not think it likely that secondary sources exist which would establish this character's independent notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails our notability standard for fictional topics, even in its current contentious mess. Eusebeus (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The few reviews I see devote less than a line (on average) to Kozak. The one web available book source is a one-liner in a "who's who" sort of publication.  A throwaway character in a throwaway film. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect we all seem to agree it isn't worth a separate article, & probably not much to merge, so a redirect is what is appropriate. DGG (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Isn't worthy of so much as a redirect.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:08, 7 October 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.