Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Burke

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Burke[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Bridge to Terabithia (novel) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Already covered here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom and Beebs. I should have better reasons, but trust is important!ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too notable to stick in parent article I'm afraid. Character likely to have lasting significance and is present in book and movie (any maybe other venues, I'm not an expert). ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree. central character to two films and book, about which much has been written. There will be scholarly analysis of this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the two main characters of a popular book and film. There should be enough to write to justify having an independent article. Everyking (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will be and there should be are not very convincing arguments to keep... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer, you can ignore my second sentence and pretend the first sentence is the entire rationale. My point, though, is that there's already a fair amount of content, and given the notability of the character it's very likely that more material can be found to expand the article. Everyking (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per WP:N. Mere plot summary with trivia trimmings. No need t all for a separate article, which will serve merely as a magnet for fancruft Eusebeus (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, this article is full of fancruft and plot summary. Virtually everything here is already covered in different words on the three Bridge to Terabithia articles. No scholarly research is included, nor seems likely to be. Jphillst (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable: major work, major character.A separate article for the practical reason of keeping the material from vanishing in a destructive merge. Im no longer commenting on all the less relevant parts of these nominations, so I'll just mention one this time:the meaningless "No current assertion for improvement-"" which the nom has refused to elucidate after many requests, and i cannot find the meaning and i don't see that anyone else can either. For all I know it might be a good argument, if I understood it. DGG (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you should have to worry about the material "vanishing in a destructive merge" since most of the information is already in the three BTT articles. Also remember that WP:N assures that the unnotability of the subject of a separate article does not restrict the content of its parent article -- we can easily give an sufficient description of Leslie on the main BTT article. Jphillst (talk) 05:02, 17 November 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.