Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Corvin

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corvin

This character does not establish notability independent of Underworld (film series) 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 any coverage in the plot sections of the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Underworld (film series) and merge heavily condensed plot details as per WP:FICT. Also the name itself makes for a reasonable redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Underworld characters to new article Underworld characters and delete category. JulesH (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely that this subject has received sufficient non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (see these and these, for example) that establish notability of this main character who appears in films and novels. The consensus for even characters in this franchise with less notability than Michael was to merge or redirect (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia (Underworld) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika (Underworld)), so deleting an article on one of the main characters given that precedent would be bizarre. Please also note that this is technically a second nomination per the earlier mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selene_(Underworld). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parroting my term "significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" is unproductive. That book search does nothing to establish that the coverage is "non-trivial" in any of those sources - several of which are obviously officially-licensed and thus not even independent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every character receives even those mentions. The comments in all the reviews that are not officially licensed represents significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. And this is just what shows up on Google News and Google Books, which is fairly comprehensive, but not all magazines and newspapers with reviews will turn up in these results. The character is a legitimate search term that is of interest to our readers and editors and as it can be verified, as the other discussions on lesser characters did not result in deletion, there is no real reason for outright deletion. I can understand cases for merging and redirect, but notability and verifiability are more than sufficient to justify something other than outright deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In order: a) That there are even less notable characters is not an argument to keep this one; b) "Non-trivial" applies to each source in isolation, and thus even a plethora of trivial mentions does not add up to one non-trivial one; c) Sources which have not been provided cannot be used as evidence; d) being a "legitimate search term" may be an argument for a post-facto redirect, but not for a keep; e) WP:WAX. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: a) Well, it is certainly not an argument to delete this one; b) Such sources as this analyzes the characters' relationships in a critical and scholarly manner which is hardly "trivial"; c) I link to the results above and cite an example in point b in this reply; d) which means something other than deletion; e) don't see a problem there, because even without the other results, this one is still notable anyway as a main character in a major franchise. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A post-facto redirect is not an argument to keep. Being a "main character in a major film series" is not grounds to keep unless such a role induces non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. You've found one so far in the Sex and the Cinema book, which while only a page long is at least non-trivial. Find more of that caliber and I'll be happy to change my mind. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I am not arguing to redirect, I think this character is sufficiently notable to keep due to non-trivial coverage in multiple indepdent sources. Something else to look at for out of universe information are interviews, such as this one where the actor talks about playing the character. He is also one of five characters from the series to be made into an action figure. I view that book along with the comments in reviews as well as the material from such interviews as the one cite above as sufficiently non-trivial, but as always I will see what else I can find. Thanks for keeping an open-mind. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary keep. I started a discussion with A Nobody that can be found in User talk:Magioladitis in which we are discussing which characters should remain and which should be merged in a list of characters. Since they are some real world elements around (conception, interview, action figures, etc.) I am very confident that we can create a high quality List of characters where we can merge all the important information from the individual articles. Since "Michael Corvin" appears in three films and other media, it makes the character a pleasant searchable item, so deletion is not an option. To perform a good merge we need time to discuss it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Magioladitis, discussion good for soul. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the three guys who came ahead of me in this discussion. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to whatever "List of ...", per CRUFT. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above. And this "notability through the inclusion of real world information" nonsense is a plague on WP. Laurent paris (talk) 23:28, 6 December 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.