316:
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;
297:
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
419:
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
342:
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
302:
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
279:
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.
420:
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. --
387:. 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, --
356:
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
378:
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
258:, 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
266:), 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
463:
267:
259:
120:
263:
151:. 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.
489:
339:
255:
196:
Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.
87:
82:
91:
234:. Unlikely that this subject has received sufficient non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability.
251:
74:
17:
361:
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.
554:
for the reasons above. And this "notability through the inclusion of real world information" nonsense is a plague on WP.
383:
where the actor talks about playing the character. He is also one of five characters from the series to be made into an
384:
578:
36:
577:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
170:
132:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
559:
186:
563:
546:
522:
504:
478:
453:
429:
391:
369:
347:
329:
307:
288:
274:
242:
226:
214:
205:
188:
160:
56:
425:
416:
317:
d) being a "legitimate search term" may be an argument for a post-facto redirect, but not for a keep; e)
366:
326:
285:
239:
518:
500:
474:
78:
555:
542:
438:
201:
182:
421:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
380:
362:
322:
281:
235:
222:
514:
298:
magazines and newspapers with reviews will turn up in these results. The character is a
496:
470:
338:
Reply: a) Well, it is certainly not an argument to delete this one; b) Such sources as
250:
due to significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (see
178:
70:
62:
531:
412:
388:
344:
318:
304:
271:
197:
156:
148:
136:
343:
one is still notable anyway as a main character in a major franchise. Sincerely, --
144:
140:
50:
299:
108:
218:
128:
303:
sufficient to justify something other than outright deletion. Sincerely, --
152:
571:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
513:
Per the three guys who came ahead of me in this discussion. :)
181:. Also the name itself makes for a reasonable redirect. -
464:
list of
Fictional characters-related deletion discussions
115:
104:
100:
96:
268:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Selene_(Underworld)
260:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Amelia (Underworld)
264:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Erika (Underworld)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
581:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
437:Per Magioladitis, discussion good for soul.
490:list of Film-related deletion discussions
213:all Underworld characters to new article
488:: This debate has been included in the
462:: This debate has been included in the
143:. Most of the information is made up of
530:to whatever "List of ...", per CRUFT.
177:heavily condensed plot details as per
7:
127:This character does not establish
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
411:. I started a discussion with
363:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
323:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
282:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
236:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
1:
141:reliable, third party sources
564:23:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
547:17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
523:01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
505:20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
479:20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
454:15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
430:16:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
392:19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
370:19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
348:19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
330:19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
308:19:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
289:19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
275:19:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
243:18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
227:17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
206:06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
189:00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
161:23:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
57:05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
598:
135:through the inclusion of
574:Please do not modify it.
171:Underworld (film series)
149:unnecessary plot details
133:Underworld (film series)
32:Please do not modify it.
417:User talk:Magioladitis
300:legitimate search term
137:real world information
415:that can be found in
217:and delete category.
215:Underworld characters
528:Merge & Redirect
539:
359:Sex and the Cinema
44:The result was
532:
507:
493:
481:
467:
145:original research
589:
576:
538:
535:
494:
484:
468:
458:
450:
444:
270:. Sincerely, --
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
597:
596:
592:
591:
590:
588:
587:
586:
585:
579:deletion review
572:
536:
533:
448:
442:
131:independent of
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
595:
593:
584:
583:
567:
566:
549:
525:
508:
482:
456:
432:
409:Temporary keep
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
373:
372:
351:
350:
333:
332:
311:
310:
292:
291:
245:
229:
208:
191:
125:
124:
71:Michael Corvin
65:
63:Michael Corvin
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
594:
582:
580:
575:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
556:Laurent paris
553:
550:
548:
544:
540:
529:
526:
524:
520:
516:
512:
509:
506:
502:
498:
491:
487:
483:
480:
476:
472:
465:
461:
457:
455:
452:
451:
445:
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
418:
414:
410:
407:
393:
390:
386:
385:action figure
382:
377:
376:
375:
374:
371:
368:
364:
360:
355:
354:
353:
352:
349:
346:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
331:
328:
324:
320:
315:
314:
313:
312:
309:
306:
301:
296:
295:
294:
293:
290:
287:
283:
278:
277:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
244:
241:
237:
233:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
573:
570:
551:
527:
510:
485:
459:
446:
440:
434:
422:Magioladitis
408:
358:
247:
231:
210:
193:
174:
166:
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
515:Ecoleetage
129:notability
497:Raven1977
471:Raven1977
413:A Nobody
389:A Nobody
381:this one
345:A Nobody
305:A Nobody
272:A Nobody
198:Jay32183
167:Redirect
121:View log
179:WP:FICT
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
319:WP:WAX
232:Delete
219:JulesH
194:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
256:these
252:these
211:Merge
175:merge
139:from
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
560:talk
552:Keep
543:talk
537:4314
534:Ryan
519:talk
511:Keep
501:talk
486:Note
475:talk
460:Note
441:Banj
435:Keep
426:talk
367:talk
340:this
327:talk
286:talk
262:and
254:and
248:Keep
240:talk
223:talk
202:talk
173:and
157:talk
147:and
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
495:--
492:.
469:--
466:.
439:--
183:Mgm
169:to
153:TTN
562:)
545:)
521:)
503:)
477:)
449:oi
428:)
365:-
325:-
321:.
284:-
238:-
225:)
204:)
159:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
558:(
541:(
517:(
499:(
473:(
447:b
443:e
424:(
221:(
200:(
185:|
155:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.