Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Mitchell (film character)

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 merge to Wolf Creek (film). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mitchell (film character)[edit]

This article about a fictional character has been tagged for notability since June 2007, but still has no reliable sources. Grahame (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Wolf Creek (film) - no assertion of notability, no sources, too much WP:PLOT. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film article already has an adequate plot summary. This article adds nothing of worth, and the character has no independent notability. PC78 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or merge~~ ~~to Wolf Creek (film). Fictional character has no notability outside that article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep Struck earlier vote as notability has been established per THIS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolf Creek (film). Character not real-world notable outside of that film. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Plot summary with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Reaffirming my delete below the break. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to real world notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, the article claims no real-world notability for this fictional character, and simply describs him in great detail. Though the film has passed WP:NF, i do not believe that notability automatically inherited by the film's characters. Pardon me if I am mistaken, but merging this with the film's article preserves the information and a redirect can lead people right to it.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my comment, as notabilty has been established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would not oppose a merge and redirect without deletion as a fair and reasonable compromise. Also, I have begun revising the article to include out of universe information.--Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Article has been rescued to show obvious real-world notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent work. Whether as a seperate article or merged to the Wolf Creek (film) article, it shows notability. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improved version, although the nomination was correct at the time. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think movie reviews of Wolf Creek prove notability of one particular character. Merge the information into the main Wolf Creek article.--Lester 03:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A piece on the film in a book put out by the "subsidized [i.e., vanity] publisher" Lulu does not establish the independent, real-world notability of the character. Deor (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability to have its own article. Nothing that can't be placed at the film's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming Delete after updates to article. Commentary on the movie will naturally mention the characters, but a few lines in such piece does not establish for a notability for particular character. The source provided is actually more about the actor's portrayal of the role than the character himself. Significant, direct coverage of the fictional character would be necessary and this article still lacks that. Also, Lulu doesn't appear to be a reliable source based on our own article on the company. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a plot summary is always going to mention characters. However, to back up a character article we need reliable sources discussing the character which do not appear to exist. Nuttah (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.