Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ripley


 * 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   redirect to Dreamcatcher (novel). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ripley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Majority plot summary article that completely fails WP:N; no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cites only primary sources: the book & film. Nothing here that isn't/couldn't be succinctly covered in those aritcles. I redirected it some time back, but the creator reverted requesting "due process, take it to WP:AFD please", so here it is. The creator himself described it to me as "an ancient piece of trifle that I wrote many eons ago that I think could go. It should be done the formal way though, as several people have contributed besides myself." So, here it is. IllaZilla (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I believe the current article is certainly less than stellar, given the number of in-universe characters that have pages on wikipedia, there is potential for this article to explain what is an extraordinarily complicated character central to a Stephen King novel. However, that being said, I have no attachment to the present article. It can always be remade, or the article on the novel expanded, when some deeper discussion can come of it and be referenced to secondary sources. I'll leave it to the community to decide what to do. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That there are other in-universe character articles out there doesn't excuse this one. The only way to explain "what an extraordinarily complicated character" it is would be to cite secondary sources remarking on that extraordinarity/complexity, and even then I don't see why that couldn't simply be done in the novel/film articles themselves, since the creature has no notability outside of the singular story in which it appears. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If and when. The complexity is my opinion, but the character can be described using the novel/film as primary sources. However, notability can only be established with secondary sources. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a WP:PLOT summary. No sources to WP:verify notability or provide anything significant outside of a summary of the book or film. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The article relies exclusively on primary sources, and even then, one is the film adaptation of the book. It does not have notability since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject about the fictional creature The Ripley. There is no significant coverage from reliable sources to presume that the topic meets the general notability guideline and, on top of that, the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work so there are no valid reasons to keep the it around. Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2011 (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.