Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Shagwell (2nd nomination)

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Shagwell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not establish notability separate from the Austin Powers series. Delete or redirect to List of Austin Powers characters. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some time has been on my watchlist as one I came across and meant to nominate for deletion. As nomination states, easily covered in list of characters/film plot section. Actually, I've just had a look at the former and there's loads of characters that have been separated needlessly. Could bring them all into here? HornetMike (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Austin Powers characters or delete. Either is acceptable. Fails the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an independently notable character. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in detail in numerous sources including Yeah Baby, yeah! A case study of a film's “shagadellic” transition into Italian; Oh behave! Austin Powers and the drag kings; Newly Desiring and Desired; Skin, Culture and Psychoanalysis; Is There More to Hollywood Lowbrow Than Meets the Eye?; &c. Warden (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Google Books searches! "Yeah Baby Yeah" is a "Research Report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Translation" which does not appear to meet the qualifications of WP:RS. "Oh Behave" is a chapter in a book about transgenderism and appears to mention the character in passing as a love interest for Austin Powers. "Newly Desiring" appears to mention the character in terms of participating in an act of "anal fisting" with Powers and otherwise doesn't cover the character. "Skin" mentions the character on two pages in terms of actions she performs in the film. "Hollywood Lowbrow" offers the character's name as an example of, well, Hollywood lowbrow. None of these sources offer significant coverage of the character in the out-of-universe perspective required to sustain an article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. It is the very essence of the character that it is the vehicle for lowbrow humour of a sexual and stereotyped nature. This scholarly interest is quite ample for our purposes. Warden (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, passing trivial mentions of a subject do not constitute significant coverage for purposes of establishing notability. One sentence in a several hundred page book is not significant coverage. You know this. You know this. You know that single-sentence mentions does not equal "covered in detail" yet you continually offer these single-sentence "sources" and call them coverage in detail. It's not true. You know it's not true yet you do it anyway. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2013 (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.