Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bec MacConn

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 List of The Demonata characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bec MacConn

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Demonata characters. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article (and all Demonata articles really) is the way in which it is edited: unregistered users or those who aren't too aware of the 'Wikipedia Editing Way' just add in little sentences that don't make sence and have spelling and grammatical errors, leading to a poorly constructed article that basically describes everything the character does with a step-by-step description of her actions in the books and a mention of every single use of her powers etc.. Basically, it read less like an encyclopaedic article and more like the books on the character have been re-written by a child and squeezed into a single page.

If the article was deleted and the details cut down and merged onto Jclemens' suggested page, which also needs a sort through, would there not be too much information on the character for simply a section? And therefore would it not classify as notable enough for its own page? steveking89 00:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fictional character's notability is not demonstrated by the amount of pertinent information that exists; it is demonstrated by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This character has not experienced such coverage. Any information about the character that cannot fit into a section about the character on the character list does not have a place on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge no significant reception from reliable sources. Support merge, per above. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:29, 1 July 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.