Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Cullen (Twilight)

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 no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cullen (Twilight)

This seems to fail the proposed standards of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The entire article is a massive plot summary. The only non-plot related materials are the first sentence and the movie portrayal section. Nothing here suggests that this character is notable outside the book series. Metros (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are eight other major characters in this book series with individual articles, so how about creating a Major characters in Twilight article and merging (and greatly trimming) all the character articles into it? Since there are five books and an upcoming film, there is not a single existing article where all the characters' biographies can be summarized. Bláthnaid 11:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that the page should be deleted. It's very useful for re-reading what had happened in the first three books (when Edward is concerned), so that, when the fourth book (supposedly called, "Breaking Dawn") comes out, the reader can remember the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella.swan87 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness is not a consideration for articles such as this. Metros (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I recommend trimming then merging this article along with any other character bios that may have been created. For example, have a look at Troy series character description page - while I'm sure fans of the series could easily have written individual articles about the characters (and compared real life similarities etc. etc.) the small character biographies in this summary page are more than sufficient for readers to get a general idea of the series' characters. As a lot of effort has evidently been put into this article (and it appears to be reasonably well-written for Wikipedia) I am not in favour of wiping it, but rather condensing it and other character pages on the subject into a more Wiki-friendly form. SMC (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article, perhaps, to suggest this character is independently notable, but the AfD rules do ask that nominators first search outside of Wikipedia for evidence of notablity. Given that every single teenaged girl I've met in the past six months who's learned I've read the books has asked me if I'm pro-Edward or not, I suspect this, of all the series' characters, is in fact notable -- just unnoticed by adults (who unlike Harry Potter, haven't been reading these wildly bestselling books). That said, I think opening a merge discussion for all the characters into a list is in order, and if nothing comes of it (either a merge or an improvement) bringing this back to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is an article that would seem to justify the worst fears of the fiction deletionists.--that people will write page by page descriptions of every plot detail that happen in a fiction, and do it not just in a plot description, but once again through the viewpoint of each of the characters. Yet the characters in important books need to be adequately described, and in a series or even in a single really important book the continuing characters need a good deal of description--so great, that there will almost always be a need for a separate article on a major character--purely on grounds of practicality and summary style. (and a adequate section of a combination article for each of the minor characters) The way to do it, of course, is to write a good article of a reasonable size, with some reference to just where in the book the events occur, and with attention to the development of the character during the book or series, and with references to whatever criticism and reviews there are. This article will need both--the reduction of the plot elements, and adding of the others. In general this can be done starting even with absurd articles like this, by cutting and supplementing. I'd start, but even the cutting would be much better done by someone who has at least heard of the books before reading this AfD. Some can be done just by copy editing, so to show that I will work when I say work should be done, I made a start at making some of the wording more concise. DGG (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Nothing worth keeping, no real-world notability demonstrated whatsoever. After removing all the in-universe ~~cruft~~ prose from the article, absolutely nothing would remain. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom currently does not allow the deletion of characters, but this article is pretty bad as DGG already stated. I recommend to cover this character in a character list like Bláthnaid suggested, but I am not sure whether this should be happening through delete&startnew or majortrim&merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbcom has disallowed the deletion of book characters? What? Can you link to where that was decided? Thanks, Metros (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if its not upfor deletion anymore then why does it say that it is? --KaidenShiba 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaidenShiba (talk • contribs)

it is not clear how far the episodes and characters injunction applies--whether only to video episodes, or to all similar articles; it is also not clear whether it applies to consensus discussions in an open forum like this one. The prudent course seems to be to keep the discussions in abeyance until the decision, so we do not have to face the prospect of redoing things. Personally, I doubt they will think it their role to offer us the sort of guidance on actual article inclusion policy that would disrupt any reasonable consensus. DGG (talk) 19:43, 10 February 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.