Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose DeWitt Bukater
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged - SimonP 02:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge to Titanic (1997 film). These are the Winslet and DiCaprio characters in the film and don't really have any life outside it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the archetypal merge candidates--in the future, you're free to do this without going to Vfd, and then redirect them. Best, Meelar (talk) 23:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Articles could be improved. Stancel 23:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Titanic (1997 film). Nothing here is not covered in the main article and any expansion or "improvement" would need to be included in the main article so these are always redundant. --Theo (Talk) 07:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)See changed opinion below. --Theo (Talk) 16:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep both, fairly well written articles about notable movie characters. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, these are major characters in a major movie. Not a very good film mind you, but winning all those Academy Awards makes the "Titanic" major. Sjakkalle 07:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Titanic (1997 film). The movie is major, these characters do not exist outside it. Average Earthman 07:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redir as above. Radiant_* 09:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. They might be major characters but even so they don't merit their own articles. Not well written or complete. Also any article that contains the phrase "they fell deeply in love" has gotta go. Other character names are currently red linked, which suggests some future intention to create articles? Rossrs 10:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, major characters in a major movie, more convenient for users to have them in separate articles. Kappa 10:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how the separate articles are more convenient. I cannot see how these articles can contain anything that should not be in the main article. What sort of extra detail do you envisage? This is a genuine enquiry; not a veiled suggestion that you are wrong. --Theo (Talk) 10:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A separate article can tell the reader just about the character they are interested in, and can do that without bloating up the main page. How quickly can you tell she was fictional from the main article? Kappa 14:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how the separate articles are more convenient. I cannot see how these articles can contain anything that should not be in the main article. What sort of extra detail do you envisage? This is a genuine enquiry; not a veiled suggestion that you are wrong. --Theo (Talk) 10:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep. I am persuaded by Kappa's argument. We need to watch that this does not spawn separate articles for every character, however; the two main protagonists are sufficient. --Theo (Talk) 16:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - the articles may be well written, but they're only a paragraph each, and the main Titanic (1997 film) page isn't too long to reasonably absorb them. Vashti 15:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect or delete. These characters are not notable outside of the work that created them. --Gmaxwell 19:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.