Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Burke (Final Destination)

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 redirect‎ to Final Destination 2. RL0919 (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Burke (Final Destination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A film character who, based on what's in the article, only appears in Final Destination 2 and its book adaptation. The bulk of the article is PRIMARY citations to the book, there's no sources indicating reception or analysis, and the only conception information are ROUTINE sources or TRIVIALMENTIONS. There's no real SIGCOV in the article, and a brief BEFORE yields nothing beyond trivial mentions in the plot summary of Final Destination 2. I see no reason this should be a separate article from Final Destination 2 in terms of coverage, and I'd suggest a redirect there, since I see nothing worthwhile worth merging there beyond what's already in that article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For individual characters to pass notability guidelines we need one or both of the following:

Coverage that focuses specifically on the character, discussing them more independently of the source material. A great example of this is the chapter "Hermione Granger and the Heritage of Gender" in an academic/scholarly book on Harry Potter, but of course articles in RS media outlets are good as well.
Multiple mentions in "best of all time" lists posted by RS. Lists that focus specifically on the series itself aren't really going to be enough for this, as those are going to be too restrictive. If the series only list goes into a lot of depth about the character then that could be usable under the first criteria but offhand a lot of these tend to be throwaway lists that typically coincide with a new entry into the given series or a slow news cycle. This list by Games Radar is a good example of the type of list that would be usable.

I haven't looked for stuff on the character yet, but I wanted to kind of show what something like this should have. As the nominator mentioned, the coverage in the article is more about the film series than the character itself. The survival information isn't exactly trivia, original research, or fancruft, but it does fall dangerously close to that area. I personally find it interesting, but I don't know if it's really vital for Wikipedia. I will see what I can find.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaderofthePack (talk • contribs)

Comment as creator of the article: I will not object to the user's nomination, nor to anyone supporting the deletion. I will just never understand how a book citation is a PRIMARY. And I could argue many others of the points, but not interested in even acknowledging this person. I didn't even want it on my talk page. No further comment from me and don't expect me to comment, either. Even if pinged on this page. Kindest regards for everyone and happy editing. CoryGlee (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, novelizations are commissioned by the IP holder. Authors are given very specific restrictions on what they can add, how they can write a character, and so on. Alan Dean Foster has gone on record about the restrictions he had while writing the novelization for The Force Awakens. Novelizations also typically work from an official scripts. Sometimes it's the final script, sometimes as in the case of Pretty in Pink, they are working from an earlier copy with some major changes. Even if the IP holder gives them fairly liberal freedom with writing, these novelizations will always be an officially licensed product.

There are unofficial novelizations but they're comparatively rare because they might pose a huge copyright issue. The issue here though, is that it's not official and in order to avoid getting slapped with a huge lawsuit the creator usually has to jump through a ton of hoops. Most of the time when I've seen unofficial novelizations they're usually either released for free with many disclaimers or they're for films where the film is now fair use or the copyright has been seemingly abandoned. These almost never gain enough attention to justify a mention but even if they do, the material has to be very carefully used.

Now, that's a moot point since what we're looking at is notability for a character. Even if the novelization were to be usable as a notability-granting source, it still couldn't be used to establish notability for the character because he's not the focus of the novelization. He's part of an ensemble piece and no special attention is given to him above the others. If someone were to write a short story or book about him (and it were to gain enough coverage to be notable) then that would be usable to help establish notability, but that hasn't come to pass here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Final Destination 2 - Its fairly unusual for a character that appeared in a single movie to clear the notability bar to justify an independent article, and I'm not finding anything to indicate this is one of those cases. The non-primary sources that are not just plot summaries are either trivial coverage of the character or discussions of the film/film series overall. Redirecting to the article for the single film the character appeared in is an appropriate WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2025 (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.