Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt Cain

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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Cain[edit]

Unnotable character from the television miniseries Tin Man (TV miniseries). Has no significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and is nothing but a repeat of the plot of the series. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and goes against both the TV and Film MoSs and the current and old versions of WP:FICT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gotta agree with the nom on this one. 100% plot summary, and just a character-specific rehash of the summary that's already present in the main article, which already needs trimming. Hence nothing worth saving or merging, and I doubt even the title is a likely search term, so delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per the nominator's solid argument. I do not see this character article ever possessing primarily real-world context with plot detail only complementing as necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reliably sourced content to Tin Man (TV miniseries) due to inane attempt at article rescue which completely misrepresents the content to indicate that the fictional character is notable enough to warrant a separate article. —Erik (talk • contrib)

Merge to List of characters in Tin Man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM not being valid reasons for deletion, especially when we can merge or even improve the article using reviews. Subject is discussed in multiple reliable sources, which means it meets our current version of WP:FICT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few lines of production, which just as easily apply to the entire miniseries, and one line of reception is not significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found significant coverage in numerous reliable sources and have begun adding Production and Reception sections accordingly; lots more from looking through searches to allow for even greater expansion of this article concerning a titular character. No one could reasonably say that there's nothing to at worst merge to a list of characters at this point. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate those efforts, I really do, but I don't see how this wouldn't fit nicely in the main article and actually make that article better. 2 sentences on casting and 1 on reception really isn't enough to justify a stand-alone article, though I would really like to see these sources added to the main article in improved "casting" and "reception" sections. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then would you at least be okay with a merge and redirect with the edit history intact and by the way, I am still working on this and the other articles, which means that there will be more added to the reception and production sections in short order. I am reluctant to merge during AfDs. I don't see any real reason why we shouldn't be able to do so, but I've seen others come up with things in the past. Personally, I think we should be able to add the stuff to this article, merge with the list, and the main article so we can compare and see what works best. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how the information is transferred to the main article. Right now what I'm considering is looking at the refs you've added to the individual character articles and using them to rewrite the casting and reception sections in the main article. I wouldn't be copying your text, I'd be doing my own writing using the same source material. If that were the result then there wouldn't be a need to keep the histories of the character articles, as there would be in a true "merge", so I'd favor a delete & redirect in order to avoid someone simply recreating the article via a revert (which is all too common when these AfDs conclude as merge). Now, if I wound up transferring your text into the main article, aka an actual "merge" of content, then yes the history would have to be preserved. So it will depend on how I go about it...I'll start working on the main article tonight and see what we wind up with. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This information is not merely relevant to the mini-series. This character is essentially, as the title of the mini-series suggests, a portrayal/depiction of a character that has appeared in multiple films and work of literature, i.e. it can and should be added to the modern works section of Tin Woodman. I would support a merge that allows for the information to also go to expand that article on a very notable character as well, but I still am seeing no pressing or compelling need to delete edit histories here as we don't delete edit histories for verifiable subjects that are referenced in out of universe fashion in multiple reliable sources. Only libel or copy vios must be deleted. Otherwise our policies and guidelines ask us to preserve information as best as possible (we have a section in some policy that someone pointed out the other day about preserving information that I'll have to re-look for). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters in Tin Man as is standard in these cases or keep. Character has some degree of notability, and combined they certainly do. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep as the article is now sourced and written better than I'd suspected it could be. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources talk about the character in the context of the miniseries. Sentences have been cherry-picked from reliable sources to make this character seem more significant than it actually is. As we can see, the miniseries article is very sparse, so it is pretty inane to spin out a character article for posterity's sake when we can build up the main article with these same details, whose sourcing is encompassing of the whole miniseries. Why not merge to the miniseries article? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just as a note, they shouldn't only be merged to the article on the series, but also to the sections on modern adaptations in Dorthy Gale, Tin Woodman, etc. The out of universe information, such as actress Zooey Deschanel expaining that she was not trying to imitate Judy Garland and the like would be excellent for improving these articles. No one could make a valid case for the Dorothy Gale, Tin Woodman, etc. articles being deleted because these are iconic characters with appearances in many notable movies and literature and as such the out of universe information I have only begun to add, can and should go to flesh in these articles about the characters in general, which would still mean a merge and redirect with edit history intact. I would support that as a compromise. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to List of characters in Tin Man or Tin Man (TV miniseries). This miniseries was substantially reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and many national magazines, so there is clearly plenty of independent reliable source material to say something independently verifiable about the titular character. Whether it should be said in a separate article or in the list of characters or main article is a question to be determined on the articles' talk pages, not at AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sourcing, which is accepted as notability enough for an article. Whether the articles might be better merged is a separate topic to be discussed elsewhere. DGG (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced and written within policy compliance, and by definition this is a main character in the series. No need to delete this. -- Banjeboi 08:47, 26 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.