Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokey (Friday) (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 Smokey, Merge others to List of characters in the Friday series. Latter two characters are clearly not independently notable, Craig Jones is borderline and could possibly be expanded out again with more sourcing and third-party coverage. Black Kite 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Smokey (Friday)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:PLOT and others. No indication of any significance outside of the film, and much of the content is incorporated into the main film articles anyway. Fancruft and no signs of notability. &mdash;Dark talk 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I might as well add the other related articles into this bundle. All full of non-encyclopedic plotlines etc. I fail to see what the use of a merge will do in the first 4 articles, and the fifth one contains nothing of value in an encyclopedia. Basic plotlines that does nothing but expand the cruft of the films. WP:SALAT and WP:NOT are good guidelines on this. &mdash;Dark talk 09:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * keep or merge into one article - the nominator may not see any value in character articles or plot summaries, but the characters are most certainly notable within the context of the movie and should be covered somewhere. Merely being a plot summary is a call for expansion, not a call for deletion.  The role the characters lay in the movie ("the plot") is most certainly relevant to the character articles.  Wikipedia is a work in progress and we should not remove information that would be valid in a completed version of the article (plot stuff) just because other valid information is currently missing (character development, real world impact - i.e. merchandising, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree that the film has achieved enough notability to warrant a cover of the characters in a separate page to the film articles. The mentioned character development and real world impact is non-existent. As far as I know, merchandise has not been created for the mentioned characters, nor has there been any social impacts of the film. As for character development, that is not verifiable. This differs from other character articles such as the Harry Potter character lists etc. where reliable and independent sources can be found given the large amount of success the films and movies have. Understandably, Wikipedia is a work in progress; but the character articles in question are not able to be developed much further apart from generating a more detailed plot summary. The main film articles have already included a extensive plotline (or rather, they have the potential to do so), outlining the roles of the characters, and I fail to see the importance at creating a separate page detailing the plot over and over again. This differs from articles such as Frodo Baggins or List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, where the information is extensive enough (success and extensive sourcing of the book and the film) to merit inclusion in several articles. &mdash;Dark talk 06:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument does not stem from the fact that I do not like information covered. &mdash;Dark talk 06:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even WP:PLOT is disputed as well and lacks real consensus. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 29. I don't see consensus in any shape or form in removing WP:PLOT. The majority of the people agree that an article which cannot be expanded from a simple plot does not belong in this encyclopedia. If you believe otherwise, expand the articles to contain sourced real world content and I'll consider withdrawing this AfD. &mdash;Dark talk 07:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the majority in practice, i.e. not the majority of actual article readers and writers, just a segment of those who however over guideline pages. Anyway, please note that I have indeed begun adding out of universe context on the significance of this character for which the actor was nominated for three awards in his performance and which is considered the big breakthrough role of a notable actor's career.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the List article and Remove any trivial, very minor characters. Spinning-out the characters into a sub-article is normal for fiction. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Smokey The reference there shows this was the notable role which made that actor famous.  D r e a m Focus  19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, well written fictional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 09:56, 16 August 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.