Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Ocean

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. Core desat 06:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ocean[edit]

There is not enough info at all to even create a decent stub.Phoenix₇₄₁ (Talk Page) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMO this is a valid stub for a more-than-notable fictional character. The article does give enough context. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence is enough context for you?? Also, what kind of information would someone put into this, that is not already in the plot of all 3 movies.(4 if you count the old version).Phoenix₇₄₁ (Talk Page) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence gives me all the context I need. If we make this article a redirect, to which one of the four movies will we redirect it? You may want to look at Agent Smith, Obi-wan Kenobi, Frodo, etc. for ideas. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 characters are different from this one. They have several books, and movies written with them in it, Ocean is just in 3 movies, 4 if you count the older version. Also, I am saying that we delete all of the links to, no links at all, no redirects, nothing just get rid of this. 1 sentence is not enough for any article on wikipedia.Phoenix₇₄₁ (Talk Page) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not supply enough sources to prove the subject passes WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ocean's Eleven film page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be ok with me.Phoenix₇₄₁ (Talk Page) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepOne hit movie? No, not at all. Two hit movies? Meh, I am still not convinced. Three hit movies? You gotta hand it to the fictional Ocean. He's made an impression on the moving going public at large. Keep. He's fictional, but sufficiently notable.Evensong (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only one sentence..., it is pointless. As of right now, if you want to add in more info, WITH REFERENCES that are not just from the movie, be my guest.Phoenix₇₄₁ (Talk Page) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, your argument for deletion is based on the length of the article. But there are many featured articles on Wikipedia that began with just one sentence. The subject is notable, no question about that. As for the article itself, there is certainly some room for improvement (lots of room, actually...), but by deleting the article right now we are denying people a chance to make those improvements. You want sources? How about the movies themselves? --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a hypothetical situation where we have an article that says, Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States. Just like that. And unsourced too. And it's the only article we have on the man. By your argumentation so far, you would probably ask for that article to be deleted, because, you know... it is only one sentence..., it is pointless. Please do not focus on the length of the article, and focus instead on the notability of its subject, regardless of the quality of the article itself. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Bill Cliton was a fictional character,and his entire story was already told in 3 movie articles, then yes, yes I would nominate it for deletion. Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also people have had a month to add stuff to this article, plenty of time in IMO to add stuff, since nothing was added, it is pointless.Phoenix₇₄₁ (Talk Page) 02:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A popular character in four Hollywood hit films, most certainly qualifies. Jonesy702 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:BOLD, I've rewritten and expanded the article. I include a (very brief) sketch of the character from the 1960 and 2001 films. I have yet to add the recent sequels, but I think what's there is a fair stub of an article. Between the films themselves and other sources (Reviews?), the article is sourceable. As a result, I'd say it can be kept with further expansion. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ZZ. Main character of 4 films and it should be easy to find reviewers who have contrasted the way the character was portrayed by different actors. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the changes made so far, per Edward321's arguments. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2007 (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.