Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violet Beauregarde

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 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Both sides of the deletion discussion seemed to suggest merging as a viable compromise, along with the other arguments for merging. I believe a rough consensus has been struck with this regard. Furthermore, if little or no discussion resulted from the merge proposal, I doubt going back to the talk space will spark anymore at this point. –MuZemike 23:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Beauregarde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Nom - Merge tag was up for a few weeks. A couple of editors supported the merge, so I merged. Since there was nothing sourced, it ended up just as a redirect. An anon-IP reverted it (an obvious sock with only the revert for an edit), I reverted it back with a note about the merge tag and existing consensus, and User:For An Angel ignored the merge tag, time laps, and discussion and reverted again stating that this article had to go through AfD. While I think a merge is much more appropriate than an AfD, I'm not going to revert again. We can do it this way, instead. Personally, I recommend a speedy merge as other editors had the opportunity to comment on the merge and only did so after it took place. Even they couldn't find any material to move into the main article because there's nothing sourced. This article primarily consists of original research contributed by a user currently banned for spending several years adding original research to articles and ignoring all requests to stop. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Either merge or delete outright -- anything relevant is probably already in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Shouldn't this be a joint AfD for all the character articles, since they follow the same format and lack of sourcing? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joint AfD - it might be, I have only checked out one other article - and merged following the same process. That particular article merge hasn't been challenged. I haven't read the other articles, so for all I know they're sourced. If they aren't, we can wait to see how this AfD turns out. If it turns out "merge/delete" then I'll go back and do the same for the rest - if appropriate. Or you could add them to this one. It's all the same to me. Rklawton (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and my commendations to the nominator for trying to follow the least intrusive process before bringing to AfD. I suspect that there might be enough content for a separate list of characters article, but the destination can be left to normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically my !vote is speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: Neither the nominator, nor any other participant in this debate, believes deletion is the best way to handle this content. In terms of the practical outcome I agree with Jclemens in every respect: congratulations to the nominator for trying to avoid this discussion, there might well be enough for a separate list of characters article, a merge is also a realistic option, and none of this is a matter for AfD.—S Marshall T/C 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Veruca Salt - here's the other article (I haven't checked the other characters). The circumstances are identical. I'm going to post an AfD on it and direct it to this discussion. Rklawton (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Veruca Salt) - it seems like a {{mergefrom}} tag should have been placed on the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory article. none of the information from Veruca Salt was placed in that article. indeed, the articles cite no sources, but unsourced information should be challenged before removal, perhaps by use of the {{cn}} tag. there is no reason the hatnote is insufficient for disambiguation between Veruca Salt, the character, and the band. for these reasons, i restored Veruca Salt. please use the cn tag for any information that is dubious, and it can likely be sourced. Also, please refer to wikipedia:merging for the correct way to merge pages, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for correct construction of disambiguation pages. Badmachine (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The article has been tagged for zero sources since February. If there's some bit of unsourced information you feel is important to move over to the main article, then feel free, but that's absolutely not a reason to restore the article - or to keep it. Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply: by "merging" the article without placing the appropriate template on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and without transferring anything from Veruca Salt to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you essentially deleted the page without consensus. im a relative newb but that seems wrong to me. Badmachine (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's wrong to have articles that aren't sourced. You could look at it the other way, too. I merged very single bit of sourced material from one article to the other so as not to lose anything - just as we do with any merge. The fact that there wasn't anything at all that was sourced, really isn't relevant. Indeed, it's just another indicator that we could have just as easily deleted this article outright, instead. Rklawton (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then create a dab page for the band and the charlie and the chocolate factory article. Entirely unsourced, in universe piddle. Plenty of mention of this character (also unsourced) in the target article already, so there's nothing to be merged.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe nobody objected to the merge proposal but nobody supported it either. If sources are need then they can be added, that isn't the issue here. The question is whether or not this subject deserves it's own article. I agree that it's not perfect now but we can work together to give it the article it deserves. For An Angel (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in the couple of weeks the merge tags were up, we had one supporter[1] and none opposed. The one opposed you'll see on the page now came after the merge. Sound reasoning also applies. These articles have been up and unsourced for years - and there's little likelihood that will change. Rklawton (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although merging Veruca, Violet, Augustus and Mike into a single page would probably be a decent compromise. Is there any unsourced info on those pages that isn't straight from the book or movies themselves? 28bytes (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see how a single page of unsourced cruft is any better than multiple pages of unsourced cruft. 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply I'm afraid I'm with S Marshall and Jclemens on this one. There's at least enough in the Violet and Veruca pages to merit a merge into a list of characters or "Differences between movie/film versions" article or what have you, if the individual characters don't merit articles themselves. Merging would be preferable to deleting in this case. (Actual merging, not a redirect masquerading as a merge.) 28bytes (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay, so having looked at the pages mentioned (I was amazed when I saw that a page so important was up for deletion, by the by), I personally think that the best course of action is probably either leaving the pages as-is (one for each, with the appropriate novel/first film/second film descriptions) or merging them into a "Characters in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" article.. of course, the latter creates the obvious issue of the first film having had a different name, but a redirect from "Characters in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" could easily solve that issue. Then each character could have their own section, with subsections for each version of the story (novel, first film, second film) within that one article. I assume that that would sate all the people pitching a fit about too many pages? Roxycurtisredd (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for the sake of building a consensus. A few of the delete and keep votes acknowledge that merging is ok. Can split the article back out later once there are enough sources to WP:verifynotability. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2010 (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.