Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen Grayson

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 Sky High (2005 film). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Grayson[edit]

A non-notable movie character Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable, third-party sources about this fictional character from a single film. If details about the character are subsequently added, such as how the actress perceived her role or what some critics said about the character, they exist in the context of the film and should be merged to Sky High. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and set Redirect as there is no sourced notability outside the Sky High universe. The character does have mention in the parent article that might be expanded, but a seperate and in-depth analysis of the character and her relationship with the other characters does not merit a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Sky High. Schuym1 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main antagonist of a Disney film . That really ought to be enough reason, if we did it sensibly. The key characters in major films are notable, and all films under this label qualify as such--there always turn out to be sufficient references. There is not the least need for notability of a character except as a character--that's what they are notable for in the first place. (As soon ask for notability of an actor other than as an actor). In any case this would never conceivably be a pure delete--at the very least it would by a redirect. I challenge the nominator to specify why its unsuitable for a redirect. Ditto for the two !votes above. Redirect, i remind us all, is a keep. DGG (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with a redirect being suitable and have modified my opinion accordingly. The actress herself has her own article and so does the film. I am having trouble finding any sources showing character notability except for in relationship to Sky High, but agree that there is notability inside that universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to preserve the page history of this fictional character's article; it is all plot detail. Any real-world context about this character can be included at the film article, which is hardly screaming for sub-articles to be spun off. There is no need to create a redirect; searching for "Gwen Grayson" on Wikipedia will bring up the film article as the first hit. Creating such redirects for characters of a single film is not really the norm. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sky High. Repetitive unsourced plot summary and in-universe trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per DGG's challenge, I'd be happy with a redirect or a merge. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements since nomination that verify the content, including some out of universe information, in reliable, secondary sources. No reason to redlink in any event as it is not a hoax or nonsense and no need to delete the edit history as nothing libelous or copy vio-esque in there either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per improvements to the article. The possibility of a trim or a merge should be discussed on the article's talk page, but this is a main character in a notable work of fiction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2009 (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.