Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddy Newandyke

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 Reservoir Dogs, page has been merged so should not be deleted (GFDL compliance). Fram (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Newandyke

Not notable outside of the film, and contains no information not germane to Reservoir Dogs, nor does it establish any meaningful real-world context. Delete and merge back to Reservoir Dogs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already three existing character pages and all the characters are slightly less notable than this one, It cannot be merged into Reservoir Dogs because its origin is not from Reservoir Dogs. True I have not established any meaningful context yet, but there is plenty and I will add it, complete with sources.--The Dominator (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If further editing answers my concerns, I will consider changing my mind. Until then, may I simply remind you that "other stuff exists" is not sufficient on its own merits. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if you do decide to delete it, let me know and let me respond before deleting. If the articles are not considered notable then I'll probably create a page titled List of Reservoir Dogs Characters--The Dominator (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have final say on the matter - that's why this page exists. I would say, however, that a list of characters is only useful if it contains information that would be too superfluous for the film's article. As the current character pages exist, they generally just recapitulate the plot from that particular character's perspective, occasionally expanding the page with unsourced trivia. Pages for characters only appearing in one film (and its video game adaptation) are generally not a good idea. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think major characters in prominent films should be considered notable as they provide larger plot detail, and detail that can not be included in the film's article.--The Dominator (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read writing about fiction. As long as we can source an article, yes, but most character articles end up being mere plot summary or worse, original research. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would move to Mr. Orange (a redirect with no obvious WP:DAB implications) and then merge to List of Reservoir Dogs characters (small c per WP:MOS). The characters that are probably capable of passing WP:FICT are Mr. Pink, Mr. White and Mr. Blonde. Orange is part of the key scenes in the warehouse including the Mexican standoff, but to keep we would require real-world commentary on his character. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange is just as notable as the others, he had a twenty minute flashback sequence and the long car trip to the warehouse at the beginning. And I wouldn't move to Mr. Orange for the sake of consistency.--The Dominator (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's just as much, if not, the most notable character in the film. Of course it's bad now, it was made yesterday, what do you expect? This article is pretty good considering the fact that only 2 people have worked on it in a day. Don't rush to conclusions, give it time. Soon more people will edit it. I also created the idea of there being a list of characters, so if you want to dicuss that, dicuss that with me.Italian Robot (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every film will have their notable characters, but they are still only notable within the boundaries of the film. If there was a prequel, then character articles may be appropriate as the characters transcend a single topic. Actors and the characters they play should be covered in detail within the context of the film, for which there is an article that can potentially be developed further. A list of characters doesn't mesh with this approach; why can you not transform Reservoir Dogs#Cast into something similar, with brief character descriptions and real-world context about the actors and their roles? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fictional characters in successful movies, tv-series and theater acts are generally notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has a considerable amount of info now, so I'll remove the tag if nobody objects within 24 hours.--The Dominator (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's not how AfD is closed. Second of all, I still have objections - none of the references are acceptable per WP:RS. And the main complaint, as before, is WP:MERGE, specifically points 2, 3, and 4 (Overlap, Text, and Context). The character page does not enlarge the subject in any significant way beyond the text of the film's page, and being as the character has only existed in one film, it is unlikely that this has the ability to change under the current circumstances. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply an opinion. I like it, and many people feel the same way. Mabey it is'nt needed, but we might as well keep it. The tag should be removed.Italian Robot (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy No claim of notability. No reliable sources so I am wary of a merge. I realize the article is new, but a new article should have more good content than this. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:FICTION, most of the keep sites has no policy based reasoning. Secret ^account 02:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a better idea: I'm going to create List of Reservoir Dogs characters, using info from these articles: Mr. Pink, Mr. Orange, Lawrence Dimmick and Vic Vega. I'll make sure that the article doesn't merely recap the plot and I'll limit all the unsourced trivia. Once you see that I have created the page please tag all of the articles I mentioned for speedy deletion. I'll wait a while in case there are any objections.--The Dominator (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Reservoir Dogs characters - the information is useful, but not as a seperate article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - your trying to get rid of Mr. Orange? Only Mr. White can do that! Notable fictional character (Greatest Independent Film ever made [1]). No consensus = default keep. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it's been one week since this was submitted for AfD, and there has not been much substantial improvement to the article. There are no acceptable references (the few that existed all failed WP:RS and were deleted), and there is only a paragraph or two of unverified real-world discussion - all of the rest of the article is plot discussion. I suggest that the real-world material be integrated into Reservoir Dogs, if it can be reliably sourced, and the article redirected to the film. Characters who only appear in one work of fiction generally are redirected back to the work. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with merging to Reservoir Dogs, there have been less notable films on Wikipedia that have their own list of characters page. Once again I suggest you read these articles: Mr. Pink, Lawrence Dimmick, Vic Vega, those and this one are pretty much the same and a "List of characters" article would have enough information. There is too much stuff to merge to Reservoir Dogs, it would make the article over-detail. So either keep the articles, or merge them into List of Reservoir Dogs characters.--The Dominator (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other stuff exists does not warrant the inclusion of this article. These character articles could very well receive the same kind of treatment as this article, as none of them have detail that cannot be covered in the Plot and Cast sections at Reservoir Dogs. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't appear to be anything in this article that can't be said on the film page. Dominik, the fact that other pages exist does not mean that this page should exist as well. It fails WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Since this page fails so many guidelines and policies (others that are not mentioned, but are basically part of the ones I did mention), it doesn't need its own page, and for that matter neither do those other articles you mention. The fact that the film is notable does not make the characters themselves notable. Unless you can provide sources that show "significant coverage", the simple face that he was a character in a notable movie is irrelevant. Just because you think he's notable, doesn't make him notable. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't only me that said this page should stay, and what does everybody have with creating a "list of characters" page? We'd have enough information to do that, and this film has an ensemble cast with many characters. The list would contain everything from these four articles, plus information on 5 or 6 other characters. I think merging all of them together is a better idea than deleting them, and a main character in a very influential and notable film is generally going to warrant some extra mention, maybe not his own character page, but at least a list. The information would make the Reservoir Dogs article too long and over-detailed.--The Dominator (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You aren't supposed to create a List of characters page unless the list of characters is so long that they need to be covered separately. What do they need that cannot be covered in the plot section of the film article? Every topic must establish its own notability on Wikipedia if its wants its own page. Even lists have criteria for existence. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references from The Internet Movie Database shouldn't have been deleted from the article during this discussion. IMDb is an accepted resource per WP:MOVIE. And as such should be reinstated. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't saying the IMDb is a reliable source (which it isn't), it's saying that IMDb can lead you in the right directly because it usually provides a lot of links to reliable sources. IMDb does not cite any sources for the information that it has, as it is typically fan submitted, which is not in any way considered reliable here. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::Bignole, you have still not expressed your opinion about a lit of characters page, there are the four character pages that I can merge + 6 other characters. You'd be getting rid of four unsourced character pages instead of one.--The Dominator (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is enough info, the character pages have existed here for so long, so I don't see why they have to be deleted instead of just a list made. It would not be good to merge into Reservoir Dogs.--The Dominator (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why it is not good to merge into the film article. These characters are famous because of the film. They are not famous apart from the film. All names can be redirected to the film article, and whatever encyclopedic detail about these characters can be elaborated there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why multiple times, it is simply too damn long! This film is one of the most influential in history, and the main reason is the characters and their dialogue which I believe makes them notable on their own.--The Dominator (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Reservoir Dogs. There is nothing here that cannot be covered in either the Plot or Cast sections of the film. Look at Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast -- it has bullet points with a character description and real-world context for each character. No reason why Reservoir Dogs#Cast can't be expanded to be like that; it's hardly a large article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the same treatment should be given to any stand-alone character articles. They are all known because of the film and do not warrant spinning off when the film article is not maxed out on detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why go into such detail on the Reservoir Dogs article when we can make a cast page, I'm pretty sure that at this point, the info on the characters is larger than the Reservoir Dogs article itself.--The Dominator (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because per WP:SS, there is no reason to spin off a new article when the original one can house details comfortably. The film article is not at all pressed for space, and the characters are directly relevant to the film. In the character articles I've noticed, there is blatant original research in describing the characters' personalities and indiscriminate plot descriptions that are already covered in the Plot section of the film article. There would be some trimming, and only relevant encyclopedic details would be kept about each character in the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why?! A cast page would do exactly the same thing, but go into more detail and elaborate on the characters' personalities and actions.--The Dominator (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need its own page? What is so special about an independent page (which fails multiple guidelines, no less)? The important thing is to retain verified and relevant information, not a proliferation of articles. Quality vs quantity, etc... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the character articles have editors' interpretations of the characters' personalities. This is original research, which Wikipedia has a policy against. In addition, more character detail is in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT; Wikipedia articles are intended to focus on real-world context. A lot of in-universe information that you might've seen on Wikipedia is currently being moved to fan-centric Wikias, like Star Wars and TV shows. It's not appropriate to write on and on about a character here when no real-world context applies. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't imagine the info in the Reservoir Dogs article. I think there is enough info for the characters to warrant their own page.--The Dominator (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say you think the characters should have their own articles. What if you're wrong? When you trim the original research and the extraneous plot information, what is left? Try to emulate a detailed Cast section because any information about these characters is directly relevant to the film. If the characters really do garner enough real-world context, they may have their own article, but it's highly unlikely considering that they've only appeared once in this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What stays is that the info is notable and should be included in an encyclopedia.--The Dominator (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Reservoir Dogs as per Erik. Erik, as usual, is correct about these things. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to merge it to the Reservoir Dogs article, please don't edit any of the pages while I do so, and don't worry, I won't just copy-paste it.--The Dominator (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, take a look, incorporates some of the info, not very good I admit, but feel free to improve. I will now tag all four articles for speedy deletion (which tag should I use?).--The Dominator (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no grounds for speedy deletion; the best solution would simply be to redirect the articles to Reservoir Dogs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I overwrite the afd tag in the process?--The Dominator (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reinstated. Please wait for admin closure of this AfD. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already done, unfortunately, I really hoped to keep this one, maybe one day Wikipedia will finally consider fictional characters notable, I hope so. Anyway, there's no point in waiting since I already merged and redirected the other articles.--The Dominator (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always argue for the usage of IMDb as a source, since fan submissions are monitored by the staff...EXCEPT the character pages: "The content of this page was created by users. It has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff.", directly from the page you linked, if it were up to me I'd probably use it if there was no other substitute, but its not acceptable.--The Dominator (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb's status as a reliable source in any regard has been rejected in past guideline discussion regarding the matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followed your link. I see NO consensus. That's a Wikipedia talk page. Nothing more. Nothing less. making it as a link that says "has been rejected" doesn't make it so. Once again read WP:MOVIE. Oh and I realise it wasn't you but this article should not have been redirected (since reverted) until the closing admin gives us the result. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, nobody is ever going to find this notable, I've already merged the articles, Mr. Pink, Vic Vega and Lawrence Dimmick all redirect to Reservoir Dogs now, the debate is over. Not that I wanted it to end this way, I meand I did create it as well as Mr. Pink, but what are you going to do?--The Dominator (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply - Firstly it's not a debate. Secondly you creating it is not an arguement now it has been listed at AfD. You creating an article does not make it yours. It belongs to Wikipedia and is part of a collaboration. It needs to follow process now. If the closing admin decides to redirect then so be it. If they decide it's a no consensus which makes it a keep. Then it gets kept. Now after that process the next step is up to however decides to do the next edit. Get me? My point was you shouldn't have done the redirect whilst AfD still in progress. Just wait till its closed and then do your thing. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, I didn't want to redirect, but it's not going to end in any other way. I never said that it was my article, why did you even bring that up? I just said that I created it to prove the point that I don't want it deleted, frankly I don't know why we're arguing if we agree with each other. Not a debate? What is it, a damn tea party? It's a debate, we're a group of people with conflicting opinions that are discussing something, are we not? That's the definition of a debate.--The Dominator (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I should have explained myself a bit better. Not a debate as in it being a "discussion" i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions. Not that it matters though? I thought also that when you put "did create it" above that was saying you could do what you like with it? I was wrong however to read that into your comments just because you bolded the did makes no difference. Please accept my apology. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange how some of the pages make it and some don't even though they're pretty much the same. Anyway, I was hoping that I could at least get the "list of characters" going, but if you think about it, ther isn't that much info to add, they all pretty much go into plot detail, unsourced trivia and crap like that. Now that I think about it, who really cares that the production team had to peel Tim Roth of the floor? I think a character page can be good, but probably isn't going to find many sources if the character only appeared in one film, but some character pages can look pretty good, off the top of my head: Darth Vader, Rocky Balboa (character) or Hannibal Lector, but they appeared in literature and over five films. What bothers me is the inconsistency on Wikipedia though, sometimes the page stays, sometimes it doesn't, it's annoying--The Dominator (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reservoir Dogs or delete. No real-world notability. Despite a promise 7 days ago "True I have not established any meaningful context yet, but there is plenty and I will add it, complete with sources", changes since the AFD nomination have not fixed this. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to attack, if you'd bother to read through the discussion, you'd see that I've admitted failure and have already merged the other pages to Reservoir Dogs, I'm just waiting for this afd to close so I can delete and redirect.--The Dominator (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I did not read through the discussion. I just read the article. My apologies. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Does not signify importance.Metal Head (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fictional character from extremely notable film and subsequent video game. --Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of a film has no direct bearing on the notability of a fictional character. The character is a relevant part of this film, just as the torture scene and the car are relevant parts of the film. The video game is based on the film in a franchise move and is hardly transcendental of this fictional character or any fictional character from the film itself. Like it's been said, Reservoir Dogs#Cast can be expanded accordingly after having trimmed extraneous/redundant plot detail, trivial bits, and original research (like personality). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done so, Erik. The only thing missing is the vitally important trivia!!!--The Dominator (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed; nice work, that's what I think some of us were trying to suggest. In regard to the trivia, you can move any trivia bits that could belong to a larger picture, like the portrayal of the character, and add a {{cn}} tag for the time being. Try to use keywords in the bit to find a reliable source so it can be cited. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was sort of kidding about the trivia, most of it is not very notable, but now that I think of it, there is some interesting information in it, like Madsen's reaction to the ear-cutting scene.--The Dominator (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is actually more information about him, presented much more clearly, in the main article on the film. I often will support articles on important characters, but they have to be better than this. DGG (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there is more info in the article is because I've already merged this page with Reservoir Dogs.--The Dominator (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, you did an excellent job of it, so we can safely delete this page now. DGG (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is ridiculous to have separate articles on characters in films unless the are of huge importance and notability. This shows no evidence of either. NBeale (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2008 (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.