Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Rosewood (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, with the expectation that normal editing and discussion may (or may not) result in merging and redirecting. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Rosewood[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello there has been a merge proposal on this article since october 2009. The people who responded where in support of this merge is there anything we can do to get this merge moving along. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beverly_Hills_Cop_(film_series)#Suggest_merging_Billy_Rosewood_into_this_article Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. No delete. No merge. The last AFD was "The result was keep. A potential merger can be discussed elsewhere, but there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)". Okay, it was discussed by a few editors and then brought back here to AFD. As we have no specific criteria for fictional characters, we instead look to existing guidelines and policies... WP:V and WP:GNG. And while the current version has been is left unsourced, notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation... and we have a wealth of such for Billy in News articles Books and even Google Scholar showing he has been and continues to be the subject of more than trivial commentary and analysis in numerous independent secondary reliable sources. Were he a real person, notability would not even be an issue. Sure, he's fictional, but Billy has far more significant and in-depth coverage than do some real-person notables, which can be used to expand and source the topic. And just as we have decent articles on Captain Kirk and Luke Skywalker, all that is required for fictional characters is work, and sorry... but I do not believe a lack of effort on a notable and improvable topic is a decent reason to either delete or to merge. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current article is a mere stub. Independent of notability, character information is usually best developed in the main article or character lists before the character gets spun out to its own article. Here, there is simply nothing sourced to merge it back, so one might as well delete it. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So... a notable topic "must" be deleted because it is a currently a stub? As notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article, and as we have a plethora of sources from which to improve this stub, your comment would seem to me to run contrary to the policy encouraging the fixing of addresable issues through regular editing. How about instead, we WP:INCUBATE the current stub for collaborative eforts by others and then temporarily redirect the name "Billy Rosewood" to the Beverly Hills Cop (film series)#Overview where he has some minimal mention. This way, and rather than having the topic of Billy being given too much weight as it grows in the franchise article, we can have the character article actually itself be improved prior to a return to mainspace. Heck, I'd be quite willing to work on it myself away from the ticking clock of an AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have had 3 years while a merge discussion was ongoing to improve it and you did not. Surly this should have been merged by now anyway considering the consensus on the link above in the discussion opener was to merge the page(Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

ME???? None of those wishing a merge made any request from those who opinined a keep at the last AFD, nor it is mandated that anyone "must" take time away from other volunteer work to stop and improve the one about Billy... and conversely YOU'VE also had several years to improve and source the article... but understandably, its rare that anyone advocating a merge would perform or request edits aginst their interest. I see WP:NOEFFORT as a poor deletion argument, specially for a demonstrably notable topic [1][2][3] that could even make it to FA status with work. And what I read in the closer's statement was that there was no consensus to delete. As discussion among the merge-wishers is their discussion, it bore a result that could be easily predicted. But note: an ageement among a very few pre-disposed editors is not neccessarliy a consensus reflective of the community at large. As a reasonable compromise option, incubation can serve the project, and to repeat, yes... I'd be quite willing to work on it myself away from the ticking clock of an AFD and as I have the time. But don't castigate me because no one immediately jumped to an addressable issue to do the neccessary work required to bring the article to its full potential. . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my full (short) explanation why I think deletion is the best solution, particularly the last sentence. I have nothing more to add and have no intention of turning this AfD into a discussion of principle. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support incubation also but only if there was a prospect of the article been improved.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: A 3-yr old merge discussion means no one wants to merge. Not fair grounds for a deletion nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. I do not believe that the full name of the character is strongly associated with the Beverly Hills Cop film series to warrant redirection, and the content is mostly unreferenced, so I don't think that a merge is warranted either. Jfgslo (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting take. When I read "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list," I look for available sources on the topic[4][5][6] to see if the GNG is met. If it seems it is, I then check with policy instructions for a demonstrably notable topic instructing that we deal with such by methods far more appropriate than outright deletion. See WP:HANDLE Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Need to be developed and more references though. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though I opened this discussion I am switching my vote to keep. Reason been if MichaelQSchmidt thinks he can improve the article I think he should be given reasonable chance to improve it. We can always kick this back to an afd if nothing has been improved in a year or two(Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - both past consensus and today is not to delete - rather to keep or merge, both of which would preserve the edit history and atribution for later improvement. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - Improper nomination - the AfD was created on account of a stale merge nomination, which is not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not an Improper nomination at all. It would be nice if you could keep things polite here. Lets face it even though its likely this article will be kept the merge discussion should have been acted upon 2 years ago and not left to sit on the page. That is why 100% for a fact this is NOT an Improper nomination and I take offense to you claiming it is. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2011 (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.