Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Hargensen

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hargensen

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

Comment, per nom. No indication of why the topic is notable, and almost all the material in the article is plot material from primary sources. Out of the 1,445 words in the article, 1,397 are entirely plot material from the primary sources (the novel and its adaptations). Of the two secondary sources in the article, one supports the statement that she's the main antagonist in the original novel, and the other supports the statement that Portia Doubleday is playing her in the 2013 remake (neither of which explains notability), totaling 48 words, or 3.4% of the article. That's it. No mention of her real-world significance that is independent of the novel and its adaptations, and the articles for them. All of this can fit into those articles. If this article is to be kept, then someone should at least explain what the character's real-world impact or significance is independent of the primary sources. Nightscream (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. (Note to closer: Link to original nom, now included in expanded rationale.) czar · · 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 17. Snotbot t • c » 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the character does not appear independent notable to warrant a stand-alone article. Carrie White seems appropriate, and I think any real-world context about this character can be mentioned in that article or in the individual film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:59, 2 July 2013 (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.