Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine White

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine White[edit]

Unnotable fictional character from single film/miniseries. No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Nothing but a repeat of the miniseries plot with excessive details and serious WP:OR added. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and either version of WP:FICT you may feel is currently applicable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same issues. All three articles are recreations of previously merged articles following 2006 AfD; creator just made under new article names, ignoring the existing and with no consensus for resplit (nor any fixing of the original issues. Also, as these are literally direct copies from the old articles, there are massive WP:COPYVIO issues as it was found that the old articles used tons of content lifted from the 10th Kingdom website:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep t At least virginia and christine were appropriate for recreation--They are the main characters of the series. Principle characters in the major series deserve an article. Now, the present articles are perhaps a little too extensive for encyclopedic purposes--but the merged sections in the main article --at least the present ones--are much too little. It fundamentally doesn't really matter if we have separate articles, but it does matter that we have adequate content, and the best way of keeping this from disappearing does seem to be separate articles. I suggest that they could have been fixed at least little in less time than this argument will take. DGG (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being principal characters in a film (miniseries is still just a film) is not relevant without actual extensive coverage in reliable sources. There is also the very large issue that the article, being a direct copy/paste of the original merged articles is also almost entirely WP:COPYVIO from the website (an issue you did not addressed). And sorry, but I don't see what the merged sections are really missing. Between the plot and the character summaries (which don't even generally belong in a film article), the major points are covered. Extensive OR, guesswork, and copyrighted material does not add to the encyclopedic value at all. And, quite honestly, it seems extremely sneaky/underhanded that the person who created this articles created new articles by copying the old ones, rather than just undoing the merge/redirects of the original or even attempting discussion. Also note that he seemed to agree with the original merge in the film's talk page. His creations were disagreed, and he lied claiming "The previous article was not deleted, merely redirected and I have created new articles for each of the characters that were vastly superior to the previous ones" when a quick comparison shows they are pretty much the same. If, by some chance these are kept, then I do not envy the admin that will need to do some serious history merging with the previous articles for proper GFDL compliance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the solid argument put forth by the nominator. Any useful information about the characters can be easily conveyed at the miniseries article, which is not exactly screaming for content forks. It is highly doubtful that such character articles would actually consist primarily of real-world context with plot detail to complement it as necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm persuaded by DGG's very cogent argument and have nothing to add to it.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN not being a valid reason for deletion, especially when the subject is referenced in published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my pet peeve: people linking to Google searches without, apparently, having actually looked at the search results. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My, my, you do like to cause a fuss don't you AnmaFinotera darling. I've been described as many things but I'd hope sneaky wouldn't be one of them. I recreated the article having used the previous article as a prototype but I changed the title and seriously improved the grammar as well as removing excessive redundant details. The differences between the two are striking. The same goes for the Virginia Lewis article. It was my first time recreating an article and the thought of simply reverting the redirect of the previous one hadn't occured to me. Nor did I lie about anything. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with A Nobody. This article does not deserve to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. -- Banjeboi 10:14, 26 January 2009 (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.