Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billie Frank

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 5 merge). Robert 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Frank[edit]

See also Julian "Dice" Black, Timothy Walker, Rafael (Glitter character), and Sylk. All apparently characters from Mariah Carey's film Glitter. Since the film itself is of marginal notability (it is probably most notable for being a critical and commercial failure), its characters are certainly not notable enough for their own articles. I informed the author that he should do something about them (my suggestion, which I still recommend, condense to a paragraph each and add to the main article or one on Characters in the film Glitter or something similar). If that is not an option, I would vote for an outright deletion, lest someone think it's neccessary to write several articles on every character from The Five Heartbeats or something similar. FuriousFreddy 06:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This character is about as major as can be, if I am to believe the description. -- Hoary 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all related articles back to Glitter (film)
  • Merge and redirect all related articles. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep too long to merge. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article's length has nothing to do with whether or not it should be kept. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Anittas 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As per WP:FICT, the articles should be merged, as none of the characters have had a major impact on society. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this awful-sounding movie. -- Hoary 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. For the other characters my personal preference is the last, but since Billie is the main character I might favor an outright keep here. I suppose there's a lot you could say about how Billie's story is semi-autobiographical, that kind of thing. Everyking 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could indeed. In addition to an article on Citizen Kane, you can and (to my mild surprise) do have a whole article on Charles Foster Kane (a better title than the somewhat recursive Citizen Kane (character in Citizen Kane)). But there are reasons for this: people have said a lot about C F Kane, and it has often been claimed that Hearst's recognition of himself in Kane is what, via Louella Parsons, blighted Welles's career: no trivial matter if true. Anyway, Citizen Kane is in a different league from Glitter (which admittedly has a more comely star) and of much greater and more lasting interest. If people want to write at huge length about the real-world precursors (etc.) of the characters in humdrum Hollywood flops, they're entirely free to do so, on other websites. Nobody is begrudging Glitter an article, and WP is of course not paper -- but hard drive space isn't unlimited either. -- Hoary 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because? -- Hoary 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't really need to be merged or deleted. Don't ask me why, because I won't answer. I think it looks acceptable separate. Winnermario 20:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second comment Can we get some more votes from neutral parties here? Every person who voted "keep" is associated in some way with all of those troubled Mariah Carey articles. --FuriousFreddy 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is surely less of an issue than the fact that the "keep" voters made little or no effort to explain why the articles should be kept. (Perhaps they're under the impression that WP is a democracy.) -- Hoary 02:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Musicpvm 20:22, 12 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Billie_Frank&oldid=1137620469"