Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Harwood


 * 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. Given that there is plenty of regret (Hobit: "really cool", "really well done"; Dawn Bard "really well done, and I hope there's another venue where it can be posted"), while it has been deleted from Wikipedia, the article has been transwikied to Wikiversity and can be seen at Katie Harwood. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Katie Harwood

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An odd one regarding a somewhat minor character in a film, mostly consisting of in-universe extrapolations and quite a lengthy amount of well-sourced but almost entirely WP:SYNTH based religious symbolism contained within the film. Aside from that, it's doubtful the character has any out of universe significance to exist as an article even one by a dedicated though entirely solo editor. Marks against this article are for concerns of WP:NN, WP:SYNTH at least as far as the character's (and consequently the film's) apparent symbology goes and WP:NOT. tutterMouse (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete but Userfy Unusual one, obviously a lot of effort has gone into this one, but I agree that it's all rather too WP:SYNTH and the character is not otherwise sufficiently notable to address the WP:NN issue. Pol430  talk to me 20:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow Way, way too much WP:OR, but really cool and, from the parts I read, really well done. This isn't what Wikipedia strives to be.  We want to record things done elsewhere, we don't want original research, no matter how good.  Hobit (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's really well done, and I hope there's another venue where it can be posted so others can see it, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, per original research, in-universe, notability. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning
I appreciate everyone’s input and suggestions. Upon receiving your feedback, I have come to the realization that the Katie article was perhaps approached from too much of an academic standpoint. Conceivably, such a complex subject might have been a little too ambitious for my first attempt at an article. I did not fully comprehend that sources are not required in articles to "assert notability" - there is no policy to that effect that I can see.

No matter who writes the article on Katie, however, I believe the basis and rational for having a Katie article is sound. Just because I have seen numerous articles on WP concerning characters I would definitely consider "minor", obscure and unimportant doesn’t mean that the articles shouldn’t be there do to my lack of understanding.

Below is the rationale behind my reasoning:


 * 1. Those involved with the Ghost Ship film’s creation stated that the character of Katie was unusual and complex.
 * 2. Katie is the only character from Ghost Ship to have her own special movie trailer. See part of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJK8PIfySOQ
 * 3. The notable following Katie as a character has had, even after nearly a decade (as demonstrated online).
 * 4. Reviewers citing Emily Browning’s portrayal of Katie as the standout character in the film.
 * 5. Katie’s unique connection bridging the fictional world to the non-fictional world, such as through the symbolic Gustave Dore murals as related with Dante’s Divine Comedy, the The Inferno, and the storyline.
 * 6. Katie’s unusual fit (or lack there of) in the story coincides with the statements made by the cast and crew that the film was not originally intended to be a “slasher” horror production. This is already cited on the Ghost Ship article page.
 * 7. The plot hinges on Katie, and without her, the storyline collapses. It stands to reason if no story, then no Ghost Ship movie. If no movie, then no WP article. Furthermore, if no Katie then no international role for actress Emily Browning and possibly no nomination for an acting award which she later won.
 * 8. Katie marked the international Hollywood debut of actress Emily Browning and marked a turning point in her career.
 * 9. I began by choosing a topic I was very knowledgeable about Katie Harwood which had direct connections to these established WP articles: Ghost Ship movie, plus Emily_Browning (living persons/notable actors) and modeled it after another article regarding an Emily Browning character; Violet_Baudelaire.
 * 10. Notoriety by nature is subjective. Only the inertia of time and history will reveal the true significance of a character and is dependent upon numerous extraneous variables such as; sequels, the future of the actress, and other stories which find their influence in the Ghost Ship film and Katie as a character.
 * 11. Some things that may be considered unique or unusual to some actually have greater significance and merit, because they are different.

These are my thoughts. In light of WP guidelines, I welcome any ideas from more experienced WP writers about what I wrote well and what I can do to improve. Tola73 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tola73 (talk • contribs)
 * WP:GNG does make it clear sources are required to establish notability, it varies from case to case but that's why it's a general guideline. Your reasoning is sound in some ways but is far from what is wanted for Wikipedia as much of it is unsourced or is original research which cannot be accepted as grounds for keeping an article. I have issues with most of the points mainly because they're entirely conjectural, opinion or unrelated to the character as a notable creation. Because of that I'm still unconvinced this article needs to be kept, I would suggest to edit content which is established to be notable before making your own articles regarding fictional characters which is a hairy place for new editors to begin with. tutterMouse (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am grateful for your feedback TutterMouse. I concede the article needs to be rewritten from a different frame or reference. What has been confusing is hearing different things from different people and seeing other WP articles on like subjects stand with similar lines of thought. For instance, what is your take on citing interviews and behind the scenes features from a DVD? What about official movie production notes? Is this OR? What about checking the assertions made by those involved with the creation of the film and its characters by citing separate sources? Do I need to actually rip portions of the DVD video and scan production notes and upload them to WP in order to satisfy requirements? If there is a good example of an article that you could recommend on a fictitious film character that satisfies all the WP criteria listed above please let me know.


 * As far as the 11 points of reasoning listed above, it's just that; a line of logical thought. With the exception of the second part of #7, further sources can be provided to back up the other statements. I believed the need to delve deeper in what was said above to be unnecessary due to the length and complexity. Additionally, after viewing other WP articles, which to the best of my understanding, barley come close to meeting the WP standards for notoriety, I reasoned anything additional would be a textbook case of "overkill," which by the way is the real underlying issue with the original Katie article.


 * I am not a fan of the Ghost Ship film, but if you investigate the sources given regarding Katie, you should discover a character with a substantial amount of notability, or at least more notability than some of the indistinct charters with their own WP page or list. Follow me up on this and see if you reach the same conclusion. I believe the evidence supports the criteria for at least a mention of Katie, albeit a redone article. If given the chance, I would chop the article down to just simple statements and reduce it to basics. This way it would be much more concise and easier to verify. Tola73 01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 04:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing you've given me so far changes the fundamental issue, the character isn't notable. It doesn't matter if I go and find you examples of other characters because those other characters aren't relevant to this discussion, it's about this character and not others. Right now, I'd support userfying the article but having it exist in mainspace simply isn't happening without third party sourcing. Using the production notes or DVD extras doesn't mean anything as it's all primary sourcing and I know, others do use it but it doesn't mean they're legitimate sources for notability purposes. I don't think the issue is overkill as you feel it might be implied, I'm thinking that a lot of what made up the article regarding the character's apparent status as some religious cipher isn't necessary because through all of it it feels like a great deal is being made out of something very little (that specific little thing being OR in itself) so to me it's an overdose of WP:SYNTH, not length though it is dense reading. Condense by all means but I think you should keep a copy in userspace should it be deleted and work on it there. tutterMouse (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Tola73's essay in support of the article notwithstanding, the subject just plain fails of notability. Whether the character is "unusual and complex," appears in a movie trailer, allegedly has a following, is central to the plot of the movie or was an actress' first role are all irrelevant.  The criterion the article must meet to be sustained is simply "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." (emphasis mine)  So ... are there newspaper or print magazine articles which discuss this character in significant detail?  If there are, an article can be sustained. Does this set the bar rather high for articles about fictional characters?  Indeed so.  Ravenswing  11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom that this violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. The in-depth discussion is also far too WP:INDISCRIMINATE for a secondary character in a run-of-the-mill horror movie. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:14, 12 January 2012 (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.