Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renesmee Carlie Cullen (Nessie)

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. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renesmee Carlie Cullen (Nessie)[edit]

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

Not a notable enough character outside the series. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate list of sparkly characters. Edward321 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Twilight characters#Renesmee Cullen ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is entirely entirely in-universe, and the subsection in List of Twilight characters already covers the character's in-universe background adequately, so there's nothing here worth merging. It's also an implausible search term for a redirect. Frickative 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible merge: List of Twilight characters#Renesmee Cullen appears to cover the character pretty adequately, though it might be worth merging the "Renesmee is depicted as being very beautiful..." paragraph - I don't know how notable that is. The rest of it is really just duplication. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicative, no secondary sources, and tons of original research in violation of WP:PLOT. Title is ridiculous, and should not even be a redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 07:32, 23 February 2010 (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.