Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Narissa


 * 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 and redirect to Enchanted (film).  Sandstein  17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Queen Narissa

 * ( [ 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) 22:26, 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, which does not seem to be the case here. Of the 3 references, one merely verifies who played the character, and the other 2 are reviews of the movie as a whole and do not indicate independent notability for this character in any way or give any added info that could not be nicely summarized in the "Cast and characters" section of Enchanted (film) in 1 or 2 sentences. In fact, I notice that they already are, which makes this article really nothing but in-depth plot summary and original research. I don't see any way to improve the article at this time or how to come up with additional secondary sources to show notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with the movie Enchanted. I would really believe that the main villain is vital to the plot and, at the very least, deserves coverage in the article on the movie. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, the character is already covered in the article on the film, in both the plot summary and the "Cast and characters" section. A merge is redundant as the info is already present in the merge target. See Enchanted (film) and Enchanted (film). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case redirects, not deletion, are the solution. Keeping the article history is not a problem, and provide material in case more stuff ought to be merged, or in case someone finds sources which would justify a standalone article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that strongly about redirecting vs. deleting, but I do want to point out that keeping the history is neither a problem nor a priority. In these types of AfDs I notice editors who favor redirecting over deletion often claim that their rationale is to preserve other editors' contributions and not delete them. While there is some nobility to this view, it doesn't reflect actual practice. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day either through AfD or speedy without regard to "preserving the history" or preserving editors' contributions. In this article's case it is even less of a concern, as the history consists mostly of edits by IPs and a single-purpose user who created the article and hasn't made any edits since. Having reviewed the article twice now, I also find it safe to say that there is no additional material that ought to be merged (at least none that isn't just more plot summary and/or original research). If someone comes up with sources to justify a standalone article, they can always split it off again. Since admins have access to deleted articles, it could even be restored in an editor's userspace where they could rewrite or improve on it. However, given the current absence of secondary sources (I did a few quick searches and didn't find any additional ones to add) we can safely delete this as non-notable and mostly unverified/unverifiable. The only compelling reason I would think to redirect rather than delete would be if the article title were a likely search term. There isn't any objective way to show that one way or the other, but personally I doubt that it is. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the points raised and I think amply demonstrated by IllaZilla. I see no reason to maintain a redirect. Eusebeus (talk) 19:57, 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  21:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral The movie was widely reviewed and some reviews covered Narissa in more than one line. I'm...uncomfortable sourcing a character article to a review of a fictional work where the character is not the subject of the works cited. Web sources are not promising. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Every other Disney villain has an article. Jafar, Gaston, Claude Frollo, the Evil Queen, Lady Tremaine, Scar, Maleficent to name but a few. Enchanted was a very successful Disney film and has introduced some popular characters. Narissa is a notable character because as well as being a character in her own right, she is also an amalgamation of many other Disney villains and one of the three most recognisable characters from Enchanted, the other two being Giselle and Prince Edward. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those sound like OTHERSTUFF and ILIKEIT arguments to me, not to mention ITSNOTABLE. Again, characters that only appear in a single work of fiction don't automatically warrant separate articles. The article in its current state does not show why the character is notable outside the film. Since the only referenced material, a couple of sentences, is already present in the main article on the film, there is nothing to justify a separate article on the character. It's doesn't become independently notable just because you liked it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The other disney villains have articles because it is recognized that the main antagonist in a major work by a major artist is notable. The same logic applies. Characters do not automatically warrant separate articles, far from it, but the principal characters in major works do. Possibly this should not be regarded as a major work,in which case a merge would do. But to propose or support deletion is absurd for a major character--redirect needs to be considered. Illlazilla, do you support redirect? DGG (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment above: "The only compelling reason I would think to redirect rather than delete would be if the article title were a likely search term. There isn't any objective way to show that one way or the other, but personally I doubt that it is." I find your assertion that major characters from works of fiction automatically warrant their own articles to be quite incorrect. In fact, it is completely contrary to the community consensus embodied in WP:WAF and WP:FICT, as well as the general notability guideline. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscrimiate collection of information, we have to have criteria by which we discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable article topics. WP:V provides this criteria: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Ergo the threshold for inclusion is that the subject has been covered in reliable secondary sources first, before a Wikipedia article can be written about it. The fact that a character plays a major role in a film does not de facto mean that they warrant an independent article. Were that the case, we should/would have articles on every major protagonist and antagonist from every major film, even in situations where there is a complete lack of secondary sources to show the character's notability outside the film. In this case, the character in question has only appeared in a single film, hence any discussion of the character can only be made in the context of the film. The character is already covered in the article on the film, and this independent article adds only expanded plot summary and original research. It should not have been split off in the first place, and there is nothing to re-merge since the only 3 cited sentences are already present and identically cited in the main article. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I didn't entirely answer your question about redirecting. I personally don't think it's necessary as I think the article title is an unlikely search term (I think it far more likely that a reader will simply search for the film's title, Enchanted, instead). However, if you feel strongly that it is a likely search term, then go ahead and redirect. I don't feel terribly strongly about it either way. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. disney villains are not inherently notable, they still need reliable sources to verify independant notability. This one doesn't (yet). Redirect wouldn't cause any problems, and might slow down un-needed recreation, when good faith editors are redirected to where this character is already covered on wikipedia.Yobmod (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: IllaZilla, I can't help but feel patronised by your comment. While I agree that Disney villains are not inherently notable, Enchanted is a major work. It has had an effect similar to that of Shrek, the principle characters are recognisable by practically anyone and Narissa is one of the principle characters. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but without some kind of source that is merely your opinion. I also don't buy the comparison: Shrek spawned 2 sequels, a host of spin-off media and merchandise, and has had a demonstrable cultural impact. It's yet to be seen whether Enchanted will have a similar effect. If you've got some reliable secondary sources to back up your assertions of notability, then fine. But if you don't, then your argument boils down to "it's notable because the movie was popular and I like it." Our inclusion criteria is that the subject has been covered by reliable third-party sources first; then it warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Such third-party coverage to establish notability for this specific character has not been shown. You seem to have your own issues with original research (re: the "Personality" section) and ownership with respect to this article. Hmm...I also notice that it was previously redirected after an expired prod, but then you restored it, adding only your original research to it. I think this is enough to show that at the very least we should redirect it back to the film article. If you want to split it off again in the future, I recommend copying it into your userspace where you can develop it and hunt down secondary sources at your leisure. Merely restoring it, however, will inevitably just bring us back here.
 * Delete If this were a real person, it would be a BLP1E, but since it's a fictional character, I'd just say it fails WP:RS. Characters are NOT inherently notable, nor should they be. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This one however, is. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just ridiculous. It's not "inherently notable" just because you say it is. I recommend you don't make this argument again without some reliable secondary sources to back you up. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IllaZilla, take a deep breath and calm down. My point is that Enchanted is, as I'm sure we'll all agree, a well-known and successful film and Narissa is one of the most recognisable characters from it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true, but it does not demonstrate why the character warrants an independent article in an encyclopedia (particularly when the character is already well-covered in the article about the film). Are there sufficient secondary sources upon which to build such an article? There don't appear to be. "Show, don't tell" should be the guiding principle here. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The film is notable, but the character is not. It is not notable outside of it's own little world. It fails WP:RS plain and simple. Unless you can find multiple reliable sources then it is non notable. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are sources for the movie, which is why it has an article. The same is not true for this character. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The major issue here is the notability of the character herself. Enchanted may have been a successful movie but it's hardly in the same league as some of Disney's classics (just my opinion), and there's very little scope for her returning if there was to be a sequel. The other villains quoted above have all made further appearances in sequels, spinoffs etc, and whether or not they are notable enough for their own articles is irrelevant here. As far as the article itself is concerned, the entire page is written in-universe. This in itself is not grounds for deletion but as there is precious little outside information to go on, there's little scope for this problem to be fixed. Bettia   (rawr CRUSH!)  11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's called removing vandalism. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep due to disruptive copy and paste noms across multiple AfDs that only merit copy and paste replies and notability.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That comment doesn't really address the concerns of this particular AfD. Bettia   (rawr CRUSH!)  15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Delete and) redirect per nom (policies and guidelines), IllaZilla (no merger necessary) and Undead warrior (comparison to BLP1E), with no prejudice against recreation if a decent article is written using decent sources to satisfy WP:SPINOUT (but I have yet to see this happen for any one-off character). (Weak) Deletion because the article is just bad at the moment, and I anticipate fan and IP edit-warring over this article after the AfD, wasting everyone's time to keep the potential redirect in place. – sgeureka t•c 15:25, 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.