Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma (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 merge to Don series. The creator and main editor of the AfDed article argued s/he would clean up and develop the article if it was left up, but now three weeks have passed and nothing happened. Leaving this a stand-alone article would not be the right decision in this case. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roma (character)

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

Unremarkable movie character - no notability outside the films, and no significant coverage found for the individual character. Completely unreferenced. Tried redirecting to the main film article, but page creator kept reverting, so bringing this here for definitive resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatively merge to Don series, the best location for characters featured in more than one of these films to give an overview of them from the entire series. This kind of merger should almost always be done with fictional characters from notable works or series, and we should handle that through normal editing rather than AFD. Roma (character) should probably redirect to Roma, given that there are multiple fictional characters to which that name could apply.
Note: the nom's description of this as "completely unreferenced" is incorrect (to the extent an article's current state as unreferenced is even relevant here; we are concerned with what is verifiable), as the movies themselves are reliable sources for their own content, provided a description does not veer into interpretive OR. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the character is quite important aswell as the male lead which is the character don she is the female lead and has notability outside the film and she has been at events as the character and was notable at every event whether it was awards, conferences, premieres or promotions.2.26.14.49 (talk)— 2.26.14.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I also think that the article should not be deleted it has alot to offer. .Bollywood Fan1 (talk)
Comment - the above comment was added by 2.26.14.49, not Bollywood Fan1 - this appears to be a single editor trying to pretend to be two. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a few comments were made without being signed in. It's a common newcomer oversight. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the article is not in good state and does not have even a single source, hence it looks like it should be deleted. But the creator of the article, if he wants the article to stay, then he has to clean it up and make it match Wikipedia's quality standards, along with many reliable sources. If Bollywood Fan 1 refuses to these, I am sorry for his article :-( ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. We don't use deletion processes as an ultimatum like that, and we certainly don't delete articles based on their current state. If the subject belongs in Wikipedia, then it should stay, keeping in mind alternatives to deletion such as merging which don't require compulsive processes anyway but can be done by any editor. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok i will clean it up but can you please just leave the article up because i am trying to clean it up and get sources and pictures so please leave it up and i will clean it up Bollywood Fan1
You better do it fast. By the way, sign your posts using 4tildes. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By "4tildes", he means this: "~~~~" (upper left area of your keyboard). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (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.