Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faline

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 to delete, defaulting to keep. Editors interested in discussing a merge are invited to do so on the relevant talkpages. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faline

Unnotable fictional character that fails WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. The article is a combination of a short summary of Faline's roll in the Bambi books and the Disney films, and personal reviews and critics of the works. The characters role and relevance is already well covered by the individual work articles. This article adds nothing of value to any of these, and the character of Faline has not received significant, third-party coverage to justify her having her own article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a source. And that source is a specialized encyclopedia. Per the 5 pillars (do I sound like someone else?) we should have it. Another source would be nice. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's encyclopedia fails the "third-party" requirement. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Reluctantly). The article is a mess of personal opinion and original research. However, Faline is a notable character. This does not necessarily mean that she should have such an article all to herself. However, having a One-Stop Shop for a character which covers each of her appearances (Bambi, Bambi II, Bambi, A Life in the Woods, Bambi's Children) makes for easier research for someone looking up her character rather than having to go on a click hunt through various articles. If Wiki was a paper encyclopaedia with space at a premium, I would burn the page myself. But don't let's be so over-expedient that we delete things which have a nice Convenience Factor regardless of what the "letter of the law" is. Lighthope (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Merge (with Bambi for eg.) along with a Redirect would provide the One-Stop-Shop mentioned by Lighthope. (Meaning that anyone entering the name into Go would be sent straight to the Bambi page and the relevant section on her. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...unfortunatel, it was done with two other Bambi characters whose articles only covered the films, and the merge/redirect is continuously being reverted by IPs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we did do a redirect to, say, Bambi, would it include all references to the character Faline or only her appearance in Bambi the film since that is what the Bambi article covers (and not very thoroughly, I might add)? And to Collectonian, I agree with your comment about anonymous IPs. Grrr! Lighthope (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would only cover her appearances in the film, though some of the book and other film appearances could possibly be merged to their prospective articles as well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I wouldn't be a fan of that. Any article which deals with a character should deal with all instances of that character. If it was going to limit itself to movie appearances, then limit the discussion to the relevant movie pages as that would be only two pages. (Bambi and Bambi II) But since that would eliminate her appearances in the books, that would be a loss of information and thus not well served. So still I favour keeping the Faline article. Lighthope (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her roll in the book would be covered in the book articles, where it belongs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then we lose the one-stop shopping. Nope. Keep the article Faline . Lighthope (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bambi (character). A secondary character, not well remembered, and without demonstrated individual notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. Faline is not Thumper. JuJube (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what medium you are looking at. Thumper is a non-existent character in the books. While he has gained notoriety in the films, does this rate an article unto itself for a character that properly belongs only on the film page? On the other hand, Faline is in both film and book and is actually one of the main characters of Bambi's Children, Bambi himself arguably being a secondary character. If you are okay with Thumper having his own page, then by your own standards Faline must have her own page. Merging the Faline article means we lose all information on her for the books or, worse, put book information on the film page where it does not belong. Lighthope (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A sufficiently important character, and being covered in a number of the works is sufficient. The nom. cites a number of so-called guidelines" which are either disputed or very close to rejected. DGG (talk) 22:33, 26 July 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.