Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Poole (2nd nomination)

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 Delete and redirect - The charecter fails to meet WP:N and fails to cite secondary sources aside from the movie publisher. Note that this was also the result of the first AFD. —— nix eagle 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Poole

This character does not establish notability independent of its 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. TTN (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge as a secondary character in the film, and not all that important a film either. The importance of the character & the film makes a difference, though these nominations do not seem to acknowledge things like that, being the same for all. Clear specification of what the article is about in the nominations would help productive discussion of the alternatives. DGG (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Treasure (film). Searching for the main character Benjamin Franklin Gates results in a redirect to the movie article. The two sources are from IMDB and both of them are not enough to justify a secondary character having his own article, in addition to failing inclusion criteria. DDDtriple3 (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm going keep on this one: character has appeared in at least two movies plus promotional material tie-ins at Disney. Imrpove the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't make articles from promotional material. That is precisely the reason why WP:N demands independent sources, so that we don't end up having a distribution of articles that is based on corporate advertising. The subject hasn't been covered by reliable, independent sources. Movie reviews are plentiful, but do little besides mention the character name. A redirect is fine, too. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article could be expanded, but contains information about the specific character. There are many pages devoted to other literary and movie characters on Wikipedia. 75.131.212.75 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the character is not notable independent of the films. Any information about the character can be conveyed in the film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sources independent of the subject with real world content to establish notability. Jay32183 (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Secondary character. Also, redirect ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:13, 3 November 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.