Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucien (Mirbeau)

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 no consensus. There is certainly no consensus to delete this material. There might be consensus to merge, but that's not for AfD Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien (Mirbeau) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability, the article contains no references and few links. Information on the subject is sufficiently provided in a separate article, "Dans le ciel". Aunty-S (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete clearly not notable but I admire the Contributors vigour in attempting to keep it alive — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishLad1916 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. On the one hand, I don't think the character is himself notable enough for a stand-alone article. On that basis, this should likely redirect to Dans le ciel (and note that this is the only character discussed on that page in detail). The language here is far from neutral, as well; it's almost lauditory of the work. That might be an artifact of translation, perhaps? This can be discussed in sufficient detail (and in a more neutral manner) as part of the main article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. A stand alone article is not deserved by the character, as there is little indication of notability, with the page barely shorter than the "Dans le Ciel" article, and all the sources being PDFs. The creator doesnt seem to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, claiming that the significance of the book and artistic quality of the character should alone be reason to give him an article. Aunty-S (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And he'd be right, if the main article were so long that forking part of it into a subarticle (like this one) made sense. Then this would be treated as if it were a section of the main work's article. But that's not the case here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/merge ::: In all fairness when we have articles like List of Pokemon and List of G-Jane characters and List of Power Rangers episodes one does find your remark "The creator doesnt seem to understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines" amusing given that we generally accept articles on fictional characters and list cruft which are utter shite. It woulod be double standards, one does not have to look far to find scores of articles on characters and TV episodes on series a lot of us have not heard of. At least this article is analytical. PDF sources do not matter. This character has some critical commentary on it. I think it would be suitable for merging into the main article or a List of Octave Mirbeau characters but the main article is so underdeveloped it should probably be merged.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if necessary as a merge to the article on the book. Major characters in major works of fiction are notable. People write about them specifically, and the cited material in the article proves it. It is highly appropriate for an encyclopedia to go into this detail in literature--we do with many other subjects. Traditional print encyclopedias may not have had space to frequently do this, but the applicable policy here is NOT PAPER--and the GNG. Discussions on soap opera characters usually result in a merge to a list because there is little or no specific third party information, but here there is. The GNG has a limited place, but it does have a place when there's no other reasonable guideline, and no guideline for fiction has ever had consensus. Sure, it could be merged into the article for the book, but as a section of the article, because it's too long for handling as a list, and a section would be possible in this case without disturbing the balance of the article, for the novel has only two main characters of whom this is one. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 7 March 2012 (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.