Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Burke (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. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Leslie Burke
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article consists almost entirely of plot summary, which really just belongs at Bridge to Terabithia. This character appears to have no significance outside of the novel/film to justify having her own separate article. Would be happy with a redirect, but nominating to get community consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then merge it. There's some usable content here, but it's mostly buried under an unnecessary plot recap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per previous nomination. Yellowweasel (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous Keep nomination. Ikip (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notification of this AfD was added to: Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) and Bridge to Terabithia Ikip (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesse Aarons was also put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the main characters should have articles. Has anyone check the reviews of the book or the film for sources? In any case this Afd, and we have no policy at all for bringing contested merges  and redirects here for a decision. Nor should we, unless we want to do twice the work--which will only result in more superficial conideration--there is already more than can be properly handled. This was an improper nomination, as deletion was not requested  DGG (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If all of the sources are about the book or film, then this isn't a separate topic from the book or film. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * there is no requirement that a source for notability be solely or even primarily about a subject, just that it has to be about it in a substantial non-directory way. DGG (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep' with rewriting to make it less of fancruft. Letsdrinktea (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: how would people feel about merging and redirecting? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep characters are central and subject of detailed analysis (this book and film were studied in schools I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per reasons above. Characters are important to the plot, and deserve an article. if there's nothing but plot summary, then fix it.--Unionhawk (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What if there's nothing to say but plot summary or redundant content? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that this book is studied in high schools extensively, I would strongly suspect there are crib books and discussion books which do discuss out-of-universe-issues. However, as I pretty well loathed the film, I am not volunteering to go find them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So much so that we need spinout articles on each character? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a main character of a book studied in schools which make the character notable and the issues mentioned by the nominator were fixable with editing. - Mgm|(talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per the reasons above. Consensus is clear in this case. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to main article, which already summarizes the plot. The article pretty much violates WP:NOT, doesn't establish notability, doesn't qualify for a WP:SPINOUT, and no-one has volunteered to improve it to remove these major deficiencies, i.e. there doesn't appear to be any good reason to keep this stand-alone article around. – sgeureka t•c 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep and discuss a potential merger outside of AfD after article improvement. – sgeureka t•c 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep articles looks fine to me.  D r e a m Focus  17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article duplicates virtually everything in the main Bridge to Terabithia article, any information that is "extra" over here could easily be added in the Characters sub-section of the BtT article for individual characters. Separate articles for individual characters should be reserved for characters who's existence spans multiple books, movies, or other works. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/RedirectThis article mostly just summerizes the plot, as others have said above. Remove the plot summery, and the brief character description that exists already on the Main Bridge to Terabithia page, and you are left with virtually nothing in this article. Are we going to also have articles for Walter Younger, Willy Loman, Charles Foster Kane, and Mitch McDeere? While the books and movies may be notable, that doesn't make the character itself notable, especially since she(and he in regards to Jesse) are not notable in and of itself. WildWikiGuy (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect Main book article should be more than sufficient to cover this character. There's only two supporting sources anyway.--Sloane (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * merge and rd per the nom. Nothing here that deserves an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) 21:48, 26 February 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.