Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Ryal

: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 moot. The article is now almost totally rewritten and is about a different topic. If anyone thinks the new article on the author should be deleted, I'd suggest opening a new AFD for the new article's title. NAC. JulesH (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Tomas Ryal]]=

:{{la|Tomas Ryal}} ([{{fullurl:Tomas Ryal|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Ryal}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Character for a novel there is no article on, written by a person who, presumably, we don't have an article on (there are several Sam Taylor articles, but none of them seems to have written this novel). I would have redirected it if there was a page to redirect it to. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The book appears to be notable, but based on reading some of the reviews out there, Ryal isn't even a major character in it. JulesH (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps slightly more important than I originally thought, but still not enough to keep I don't think. Character is briefly mentioned in [http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-amnesiac-by-sam-taylor-447733.html this review] which describes him as "especially cryptic". [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3663724/Enter-a-beautifully-perplexing-world.html This review] includes an entire paragraph dedicated to him, describing him as the most compelling character in the novel, and commenting on the existence of this article, but reading between the lines it suggests he only appears in a biographical description rather than actively playing a part in the novel. Other reviews ([http://www.nysun.com/arts/the-missing-years-sam-taylors-the-amnesiac/82250/] [http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-amnesiac-by-sam-taylor-804261.html]) don't mention him at all. JulesH (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I rewrote and retitled the article. It is now about the author and his books instead of this fictional character. If you look at one of the cites you will see the hoax on Wikipedia is actually mentioned. Furthermore the article's creator also added one of the fictional characters books as reference in another article which I removed. I think this can be closed now as "resolved". The author and two of their books are notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Tomas Ryal section of the new article is still completely written in an in-universe style. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the section gives him undue weight in comparison to the author and the book. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

::Are you talking about the section of the article or the whole article? There isn't an article on Thomas Ryal any more, it's about the author. Anyone is free to cut down that section. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Refs are hard to sort out due to Sam Taylor-Wood, but I think COM has made a case for keeping. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 07:15, 20 March 2009 (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.