Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya/Anastasia (character)

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 clarify, the consensus in this discussion is strongly against deleting this article, however, there is no consensus as to whether it should be kept as a stand alone article or merged. Since that is a matter for the normal editting process, I simply will note this as a default keep, with no prejudice to a future merge if there is agreement to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anya/Anastasia (character)

Anya/Anastasia (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Character is not notable on her own, and the article just contains a reiteration of some of the film's plot and a compilation of some fancruft. SilentAria ^talk 08:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Merge or conditional keep. The film's decently notable, but this article seems entirely redundant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody's work HAS improved it there's an awful lot of unreferenced fancruft. If he intends to improve it further, I'm happy to wait and see what happens. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge Normally the heroine of a film is a suitable separate article, but in this case the content could well be merged as an exception. It's really a question of style. DGG (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Why is this its own article instead of merging the sourced material into the parent article? Anastasia isn't inordinately long for a film article, certainly not so long as to need a separate article for what is effectively material about itself. Merge and redirect. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep She is the main character in a notable film, novel based on the film, and game. Enough information here to fill her own article. Dream Focus 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete emberrassing content fork from the film more-suited to some fan-wiki. There are simply no sources that establish this fictional entity as notable aside from the work of fiction in which it appears.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to availability of sources that establish this fictional entity as notable aside from the work of fiction in which it appears (based on a real historical figure and titular character of a film, novel, and game as well as having been made into multiple dolls) and as you can see, I have been working pretty hard to improve this one. Given the historical basis for the character, the titular appearance in a film, video game, and novel as well as having been marketed in about a half dozen different dolls, I am coming across a number of sources from which to construct an out of universe article. I next hope to see if I can find any interviews for a production section, but anyway, I truly believe we have the basis for something here. As an alternative, the nominator has said, she is “not opposed to merging the information from the sources you cited into the film article, as I believe it would really help improve the film article's quality.” Please note that if I merge anything we cannot delete per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Please take a closer look at what I said in that link provided. I was referring to the information from the sources you added and not the article itself. As you can see, I said "The articles you cited seem to talk about the film, and not the character alone (they would actually be much more useful additions to the film article than a separate article about Anya)." I also eventually said that I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting, "should the consensus deem it so", but that "I don't see anything that can really be merged from them". Perhaps I'm not very good at explaining things clearly, but those statements do not mean that I believe that merging/redirecting is a better solution for these problematic articles than deletion. I still stand by my nomination and firmly believe that the articles should be deleted based on WP:NOTE (as well as WP:V and WP:WAF), and WP:PLOT, disputed or no. That being said, please don't use my words to justify a "Keep" vote. --SilentAria ^talk 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It clearly passes WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT, however, which is why it will be kept. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I do not agree that it's good editing policy to always break up articles as far as WP:N would permit. It hampers usability to have fragmentation to that extent. But since at the very least it would be a merge, a true merge preserving content, we can discuss matters of style at the talk page. I hope those proposing deletions of articles such as this will learn to understand that deletion is the last resort only. DGG (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep good sources in article, more than establishing notability. Ikip (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:The Walt Disney Company, Anastasia (1997 film), and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disney page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Merge. I'd say "delete" if only because Ikip thinks the article is Disney-related. Which it's not. That aside, the current article is filled with fancruft and unnecessary trivia not related directly to the character herself. Cut all that out, and what you're left with can be merged back (with its valid sources) into the main article. SpikeJones (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Anastasia. plenty of room there. no need to seperate. flesh out the film article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:Heyman improvements. Generally has been de-"Fancruft"ed and shows path towards a good article. Sourcing exists and likely more can be found, good work. -- Banjeboi 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Almost no content here and what has been derived aspires to mere trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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.