Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Ryan


 * 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   no consensus. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rusty Ryan

 * NOTE: Also included in this AFD is Linus Caldwell.
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

NN character per WP:FICT, no real world references Dismas |(talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable outside of the re-makes. article doesn't even mention the original movie. Misleading. Possibly merge with the Ocean articles, but that probably isn't necessary. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid characters in notable movie. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What does "valid" mean in this context? Putting that aside for now, would you say that all characters from every notable film deserves an article?  Should we have a stub for the piano player in Casablanca?  Or the girlfriends from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?  Dismas |(talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Both are major characters over several parts of the series--therefore a separate article is appropriate. But I think the LC article is of rather poor quality, and does need quite a bit of trimming & rewriting to make it understandable to those who dont know the series. There are probably enough secondary sources to be found in the various reviews to accommodate those who think such sources necessary. Incidentally, WP:FICT is not a guideline. It's a proposed guideline, and was almost marked as rejected a little earlier today. there is no point quoting it as if it indicated consensus.  DGG (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete DGG correctly notes the disputed aspect of WP:FICT, but fails to acknowledge that there remains widespread agreement in the ongoing discussion that rejects purely content as a basis for individual articles, a derivation of WP:NOT. To wit: these articles. Eusebeus (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * there's unfortunately little consensus on anything in this proposed guideline, By looking back over the incredible length archives, one can find support in the discussion for anything. It is probably a compromise position to say that any amount of real-world content is sufficient--and there should always be able to be some, because one can & should always find who played it and where in the series the role occurred. This eliminates the actual "real-world" problem, which was the many articles present here a year ago which gave no indication whether or not the people were actually from a fiction in the first place. there's just a little here, and more is needed. Agreed its a low-quality article. sofixit. DGG (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, FICT isn't even a guideline. And I'm guessing there are hundreds of sources that have written about this character. The nominator can start by looking at these 515 sources. --Pixelface (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all as recognizable characters played by big name actors in blockbuster series. Moreover, it says at the top of WP:FICT page: "references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'."  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point out where anyone refers to WP:FICT as 'policy'. Dismas |(talk) 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both and create redirects. Articles consist only of plot summaries of the remakes. The films are notable but that doesn't imply that each individual character is as well. It is exactly like episodes an Tv series. The notability of the Tv series is not transferes to each episode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are redirect locations and the articles are not hoaxes, libel, or copy vios, then we do not delete the articles as well as it is important to maintain user public contribution histories and to make it easier to improve redirected articles whenever new sources come along. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * the guideline at fiction gets more and more dubious each day. In any case, the actual guideline in practice reflects what we do in Wikipedia, and this is the place to decide. We are bound rigidly by guidelines even when they do exist, we can interpret them according to reasonableness. And when the guideline is totally disputed not just in detailed wording but in its very existence, asserting t here is a totally bald assertion. Important characters in fiction are appropriate for articles. Les important ones in important fictions are appropriate for merge. nether are appropriate for deletion.


 * 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.