Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Filone (2nd nomination)

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 merge to List of The Sopranos characters. Given we have an obvious merge target, using the deletion tool here is rather unsuitable. Disagreements, feel free to take them straight to WP:DRV, but this is a case where a clear alternative to deletion is poorly considered by the discussion. Courcelles 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Filone

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

This article is a summary-only description of works completely unreferenced to any reliable, third-party sources and has been for over five and a half years. IAW WP:BEFORE, this character appeared in only two episodes (per the article), and what few reliable sources I've found are all simply referencing the plot as already present in the article. — Fourthords | =/\= | 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Fourthords | =/\= | 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article does not have verifiability because it has no sources, so I believe that there is nothing worth keeping. Jfgslo (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropriate Sopranos character list. While the character apparently lacks the stature for a stand-alone article, there's plainly no basis for removing the content entirely and punching a hole in the otherwise comprehensive treatment of the notable fictional work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that, but the character only appears in two episodes and there're no reliable secondary sources for anything outside the plot of those stories. Any list entry would simply be duplicating the content at "Denial, Anger, Acceptance" and "The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti" (which themselves are lacking any reliable sourcing at all). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's been a longstanding working consensus that it's acceptable to source in-universe content for fictional works to the fictional works themselves, and that no specific citations are required. There are thousands of articles which follow this practice. I find it odd that we've got a push going on to require more rigorous sourcing for article about fictional characters on fictional television shows than we do for living persons on "reality" TV shows; note, for example, the current state of the article on Big Brother 13 (U.S.), which mixes large chunks of unsourced content regard the behavior of living persons on the show, content referenced only to the episodes of the show itself, and, occasionally, sourced content regarding what living persons said or did. If this kind of sourcing satisfies the rigorous requirements of BLP, as by sad consensus it has in the past, then the widespread practice of sourcing fictional content to the relevant fictional works would hardly be inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2011 (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.