Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Cullen

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 Twilight (novel) in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 08:07Z

Edward Cullen

Edward Cullen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is mostly a summary of what happens in both Twilight and New Moon. It is poorly written and structured, and has no proper editing that is usually seen on Wikipedia. Disinclination 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, better to start from scratch. This is apparently an "article" about a fictional character that appears in two novels, and its only content is a summary of that fiction with no real world facts. In this form, it's merely a copyright violation, as the academic context of real world description and commentary is what allows us to make a fair use claim to summarize fiction. It would have to be completely rewritten to be acceptable. Perhaps more to the point, the two articles on the two novels are already in an encyclopedic format and contain summaries of their stories. This is therefore completely useless and redundant. Postdlf 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article can be cleaned up and set on track. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. MER-C 04:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. Relevant content is present in articles, whcih do not even link to this article. Character is not separately notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Originally, the article was a redirect to Edward Peter Cullen, a bishop who has nothing to do with the current subject. I don't know how things like this would work, but could the page be kept for that purpose, at least? Salmar 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing would prevent you from recreating that redirect after this is deleted so that the current garbage isn't left in the edit history. Postdlf 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I appreciate people editing the article, but its really making it alot worse. The article SHOULD look like a fictional character 'biography' (if thats even the correct word to use), I would do it, but I have little experience in doing such things. If someone wants to try and tackle this article, take a look at Harry Potter (character) or any of the HP character articles. Those are well done, and what an article like Edward Cullen should look like. I love Stephenie Meyer's series, and this article does not do it justice. Disinclination 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. Fledgeling 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ironosora I created a much different article when I first wrote it. People have changed it so much that I think its gotten a bit ridiculous. The article should be more like the Harry Potter one, but to make it that detailed I'll need more people to help and fewer people to change the content that drastically. None of my actual original writing has even been left there. I think that the actual content should be deleted, but the article itself should remain. If there's anyone out there to help me make a better one, message me and we can make a truly worthy article. I felt it necessary to give him his own article as he is such a fascinating character. So, message me if you want to make this work.
• Keep CrazyDaisy1444 I think that with some editing and cleaning up, this article could work. It's not just a summary of Twilight and New Moon, since it includes outside information about the character's past and family that is not included in the novels. I agree that it should look like a fictional character biography, like the Harry Potter articles, and I don't think that this article should be deleted yet.

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.