Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jules Brown


 * 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 Back to the Future. -Splash - tk 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jules Brown

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fictional character. Article is almost entirely plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Jules Brown' -wikipedia" on Google returns almost entirely hits about an unrelated author who appears to write travel guides. "'Jules Brown' 'Back to the Future' -wikipedia" on Google returns episode guides with trivial mention and non-reliable fansites and forums. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Back to the Future per WP:FICT. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that Meta page is actually logical, while Wikipedia's policies are not.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this character outside of the film. --Gavin Collins 10:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:Plot, he is a minor character in the movie add to that the fact that there are no references means it's kind of pointless to merge. Ridernyc 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also kind of pointless to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2007 (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.