Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvera (Character)

:{{la|Calvera (Character)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvera (Character)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Calvera (Character)}})

No indication of notability whatsoever. Does not meet WP:N. Crusio (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is about a character from the film The Magnificent Seven. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• keep Fairly widely known character, influential in some other Westerns and other dramatic fiction. Existing refs seem sufficient to establish notability, and many others could be added. The article could use improvement, but there is no reason to delete it. DES ^(talk) 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• keep or Merge. Widely known character which has received [http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&q=calvera+maginificent+seven&btnG=Search+Books] in reliable sources. I would suggest having a single big article on all the characters of the Magnificent Seven. With the quality of sources available in Gbooks the existing ones SerdechnyG has added, a single article has a good chance of making it to GA or FA status. And it would be far more convenient to have them all in a single article.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

: Calvera is a most "mercandizing-effective" character. It's a trademark, not a name. There are a lots of different products, produced under this brand. We should take it into account. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• keep. Wikipedia has load of articles about fictional characters, so clearly there cannot be an objection in principle to having articles on fictional characters. The film is extremely well known. There is no reason why the article cannot be developed to become a good article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as a potential topic that should be researched further. However, The Magnificent Seven is very sparse, so if there is not that much about this character, we should be able to put together a strong "Cast" or "Characters" section at the film article. If we can write about three, four, or more paragraphs about the character alone (with secondary sources, not the film), then a stand-alone article could work. Erik (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:*So do you recommended an outright keep or a merge? --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

::*I'd rather keep now and rework this character article (and the others) into prose. There are details to work out, but not in the course of this discussion. These characters transcend one film, so references will have to tell us if we can create a cohesive picture of the character across the films. There would be redundancy, to be sure, but if a reader wants to read about just the character, a stand-alone article can centralize such details. Discussion to merge should take place post-AFD so we can work out the details. Another possibility is Characters in The Magnificent Seven series or something of the like. It's just a little too complex to hammer out here. Erik (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:::*Given the paucity of sources, such a merged "characters etc" article could work, I think. And it is not beyond the realm of AfD to discuss merging instead of outright deletion. --Crusio (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

::::*You're right; it is not beyond this realm. We are dealing with multiple articles here, though, and potentially a complex merge. My preference to keep now does not mean I would not be open to merging. It really depends on the vetting of the references. Unless these AFDs really turn around, I would recommend withdrawal and pursue post-AFD discussion at WT:FILM. We can work out a solution. Erik (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Your opinion spreads on all three articles (Chris Adams, Bernardo O'Reilly) or only on Calvera? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::All of them, which is why I referred to a "complex merge". There are sources that exist, but there may be some padding (particular with the "Further reading" sections). AFD is not the venue, IMO, because these characters are "known" and will be mentioned in coverage related to the film. So outright deletion isn't beneficial; at the very least, the character articles should be redirected to the film article. We just need to work on the existing references and possible references and write up prose. I think prose is easier to move around; bullet points look a bit trivial. Erik (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::After this discussion ends and the articles would be kept - you are personally welcommed to replace anything you consider as trivial to the article discussion page or simply hide it with a hidden comments. Besides, what IMO stands for? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, I will keep up with these AFDs and work with other editors on the content and see about a merge. IMO means In My Opinion; just tempering my comment so it does not come off as an imperative. :) Erik (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::As I suppose, if their content would be expanded by un-trivial information, it would be needless to merge them. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually it's really not so important that all these people, who described the character, have professor titles. But, during a deletion discussion, which, by the way, was started by Crusio, his reverts looks like deleting the notalibility proofs. For example, if someone named Barry Keith Grant had described a subject of the article in his books - it means not more important than such description by anonymous user anywhere in the Web. But, if we add that this Barry Keith Grant is a Doctor of Arts, professor of Brock University - this little addition changing a notability and reliance of this source in a critical way. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination The article has cleaned up rather nicely. I therefore withdraw the nomination and suggest that we work towards Erik's suggestion of merging the articles on the different characters with the main movie article. --Crusio (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.