Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Dawson Calvert

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 Titanic (1997 film). v/r - T P 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Dawson Calvert

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

I can't see any evidence either in the article, or in searches I've done, that this character meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. I can't find any significant coverage of the character in reliable sources. I suspect there isn't anything more than is already included in Titanic (1997 film) and, as a fairly uncomplicated character that appears in only one film, I see no reason for a separate article. Beloved Freak 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of value back to the film article, retain as a redirect even if there's nothing worth merging. It's a rare character that has only appeared in one film that merits his or her own article, and I don't see this fictional female being an exception. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this article should be kept and not deleted or merged. The character is the main character of one of the most noted films in history and it seems like alot of history about the character has been established in the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that has been established in the article is a mixture of original research ("Rose appears to be severely depressed"; "It can be assumed that Rose led a free life after the Titanic, and the bedside photographs in 1996 suggest that she made "every day count"") and a reguritation of the plot. Nothing is backed up by any critical discussion in scholarly sources, and having searched for such sources, I am doubtful they exist. The character is mentioned in reliable sources, but I can find no significant coverage. If you are aware of some, please add them to the article. Notability is not inherited. A main character of a notable film does not necesarily have independent notability. We don't decide whether or not they're worth talking about - the sources do.--Beloved Freak 20:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Belovedfreak - there are simply no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for Wikipedia. —Mike Allen 06:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MikeAllen. Not a reasonable search term, maybe Rose Dawson but not Rose Daweson Calvert, and even then Rose Dawson should redirect to the film article. She is not Ellen Ripley, she is not notable enough to warrant her own article nor does the information exist to support such an article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merging, Jack! Seems an obvious case. It may not be a likely search term, but it's a possible one, and I see no problem with a redirect, along with a merge of anything verifiable. Powers ^T 13:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would you merge? Just curious. Is there anything worth keeping in this article that's not already in Titanic (1997 film)?--BelovedFreak 14:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't had a chance to pore over it in detail; I'm fine with a simple redirect if there's nothing to merge, but it seems like a needless distinction in the case of an AfD. Powers ^T 15:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and the article is an unreferenced summary-only description of a fictional work. As nothing is referenced, I do not believe that a merge is appropriate. Jfgslo (talk) 00:45, 30 September 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.