Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Johnstone


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Martha Johnstone
Prod removed by article's creator, no explanation given. Redirect to movie's main article reverted by article's creator, again with no explanation given. This character is not notable enough to merit a separate article, and this article is little more a summary of one specific scene from the movie. This article should be redirected to the movie's main page, as the only other article (that I know of) about a character from this movie's has been for being unencyclopedic. Icarus 07:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per nom. Also POV issues in article. Darquis 08:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are attempting to suppress the truth. Other notable fictional characters are listed and described throughout Wikipedia at discreet entries. Your comments are therefore unencyclopedic. Hahbie 05:46, 1 May 2006 (Eastern Daylight Time)
 * This isn't part of the encyclopedia, this is a discussion on AfD. And the entry *does* have POV issues.  I vote to Delete, the character is extremely minor and I don't see anything here that is worth merging. Danny Lilithborne 09:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep You are attempting to suppress the truth. This fictional character is sufficiently notable as to have warranted the drafting and entry of the subject article. This fictional character's existence is at present constituted by the one specific scene. This character was deemed important enough to be depicted photographically on the packaging of the Region 1 DVD of the film. You fail to distinguish objective notability from subjective notability. The purported standard "not notable enough" is void for vagueness. Other notable fictional characters are listed and described throughout Wikipedia at discreet entries. The article is neither misleading, nor is it inaccurate. The content of the article is not profanely expressed. The article is therefore of sufficient merit. Hahbie 10:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're saying the article deserves to exist because it exists. That's circular reasoning.  And accusing those who vote against keeping the article of "trying to suppress the truth" is bad faith.  It's a character in a movie; I fail to see where truth becomes an issue here. Danny Lilithborne 11:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor character in one movie. In the IMDB cast list, this character was listed 27th. Fan1967 12:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I state that this fictional character is notable, because I deemed this fictional character notable, and because such notability is entirely objectively assessable, except to those persons who are politically or invidiously opposed to the inherent statement made by the visible and visual expression of the character's social minority. The article is of sufficient merit for all of the reasons originally stated. Hahbie 14:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, your argument is (a) the character is notable because you said so and (b) anyone who disagrees must be "politically or invidiously opposed to the inherent statement made by the visible and visual expression of the character's social minority." I'm guessing, in trying to translate that phrase into English, that you're trying to claim we're all prejudiced against large women? Fan1967 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is not a clearly-defined concept, I agree, and there is a lively debate over at the WP:DP talk pages which you may want to join. But this is clearly in the non-notable category, pretty much however you square it. Batmanand | Talk 15:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've never seen the movie in question, but the IMDB entry has this character billed 27th, after several non-named characters (i.e. "Gordon's Wife"). Doesn't seem to be a major character. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete the character is barely in the movie, not notable. -- E ivindt@c 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice the character was not even in the Canadian version of the movie, and no one noticed. Thats how minor they are. Superbeatles 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I recognize that Hahbie is heavily invested in this article (the article, and articles about the actress playing her and the movie in which this character appears represent his sole contributions to Wikipedia), but please do understand that Wikipedia has guidelines and standards for gauging notability more stringent than "It's notable if I say it is."  I recommend WP:FICT as a start.  RGTraynor 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- FRCP11 23:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article needs deletion by a rouge admin. -- E lkman - (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

''No, I am not stating that the character is only notable because I say it is, and for no other reason other than my own caprice. I state that this fictional character is also notable on an objective basis because (1) this fictional character was depicted within a significant scene; and, (2) the depiction of this fictional character's role advances the backstory of a more prominent character depicted in the movie; and, (3) this fictional character was given a name in the screenplay; and, (4) this fictional character was depicted in a speaking role within the movie per se. The fat that I deemed the character notable only demonstrates the subjective component of the quality, without additional reasoning and explanation demonstrating the objective component. I have indicated several reasons why this fictional character is notable on an objective basis. This fictional character is no less notable than Noonien Soong of Star Trek: The Next Generation'' was after the character's first appearance in that work. I am also stating that the even the expressed WP-FICT guidelines are therefore vague. Also, in general, I state that simply because a fictional character appears in and is developed within a movie which is of the comedy genre does not diminish its notability compared to fictional characters depicted in other genres and media.'' ''I, myself, have never heard slurping and squishing sounds when actually witnessing the body morphology and body kinesiology of obese persons. If I agreed to and did appear in such a role within a major Hollywood motion picture, and such sound effects were subsequently dubbed in after my participation in principal photography, and without my assent, I might consider bringing an action in tort for invasion of privacy against multiple and deep-pocketed named defendants--because my agreement to appear in a motion picture in such a role would not make it legally impossible to exceed the scope of the implicit consent thereby. It would be deemed to constitute an unlawful misappropriation of my likeness and image. The foregoing statement was not nor was it intended to be legal advice. Ms. Denberg's career will probably be diminished from what it could have been as a result of this appearance. ''Also, I agree that, from what I know of them, Canadians would have even less tolerance and appreciation for such a character than Americans would. I have heard anecdotal evidence that the various Canadian government-provided health plans do not cover the various bariatric surgical procedures at all. In general, Canadians are as obese as Americans, but tend to adopt what they think is a Britishesque disdain of such a medical condition. Also, in contrast to the character of Martha Johnsone, which is developed by and as a speaking role within the movie itself, the character of "Gordon's wife", played by Suzy Nakamura, is not, and is thereby and therefore, for the purposes of cataloguing the facts of this movie, less notable, because that character only had spoken lines within the deleted scenes included in the DVD.'' Hahbie 02:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you done? Because it sounds like you haven't been giving us the real reason you created this article.  Taking a stand for the rights of the obese does not constitute enyclopedic content.  You can't compare a joke character to Noonien Soong from ST:TNG, who has the important role of having created one of the main characters.  Neither reason is good enough. Danny Lilithborne 07:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well ... a slanging match would do no good, in any event. I recommend that those of us proposing deletion stand on our arguments, and those proposing keeping the article stand on theirs.  RGTraynor 14:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; any salvageable information can be put in the article about the film. David | Talk 15:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (or possibly Redirect &mdash; I don't think the character is notable enough to bother with in case another character or person with the same name appears.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Extremely minor character from a movie which itself will probably be forgotten by next year.  See no need for redirect, since the character's name apparantly only appears in the credits, making this an extemely unlikely search term.  ergot 14:25, 4 May 2006 (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.