Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Tremaine

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 an article about the sisters. The article has been improved, but reading the discussion as whole the consensus still appears to merge. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Tremaine

Character is not notable, and the article is essentially just a plot summary with some fancruft. SilentAria ^talk 14:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, per WP:Cruft "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Cinderella (1950 film). Non-notable fictional character. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this and the other into an Ugly Stepsisters article of some sort. Good work done on them both since the AfD began, but would be better served by one article on them both. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ugly sisters which seems more notable but could use some help. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as the Colonel suggests. There's really no reason to have separate articles. It's reasonable to group characters like this as a compromise. A motion to delete rather than redirect would be absolutely wrong in any case, because the characters are certainly important enough to have a redirect to the film at the very least. There probably are additional sources, as Disney has become a significant academic topic. Even though we could justify separate articles, the combination still makes sense as a matter of reasonable editing to prevent fragmentation. I do not agree that it's good editing policy to always break up articles as far as WP:N would permit. It's a little absurd to bring such merge questions here, but at least they do get some attention. DGG (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm against destroying 90% or more of the article, for a merge. There is enough information here to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 19:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect -- not notable enough for a separate article. Needs sources demonstrating independent notability separate from film article, which it does not. DreamGuy (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve further or merge as nominator has said, “I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting the articles.” Please note that if I merge anything we cannot delete per the GFDL. Also, the wicked stepsisters have been in quite a number of marketing products associated with the films and there is good reason to believe those can be expanded further if not merged into an article on Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella). They are unquestionably notable characters. Anastasia and Drizella Tremaine are essentially the wicked stepsisters from Cinderella. These could easily be merged into a Wicked stepsisters (Cinderella type of article. If you check Google Books doing a search of that nature, they are discussed in academic books in an analytical and out of universe manner, because these characters' have origins that go back to at least the early 1800s with the Brother's Grimm. Their transformation from the original literary characters to the Disney film appear in such books as this. Whether their role in the individual film is notable, their place in a centuries old literary and then film culture is something that has indeed been covered in academic resources and in this case, a merge to a new article on the wicked stepsisters together seems appropriate, because these are characters that certainly at least English teachers/students as well as those studying folklore and its reception in modern culture have written on and have an interest in. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the three lines of real world information the film article and redirect there. Unnotable fim character, with only minor real world info that is not really third-party beyond the one phrase mention in one review. Bulk of the article is just a repeat of the plot summary. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT, and violates both WP:WAF and WP:MOSFILM as most of it would not be appropriate content in the main film article either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note the article has gone though signifigant improvement since it was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge well sourced article, meeting notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:The Walt Disney Company, Talk:Cinderella, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disney page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

Merge per Collectonian's recommendation above. SpikeJones (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, it is too big for a merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There aren't enough reliable sources for anything except plot summary to support a separate article on each of these secondary characters. Powers ^T 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:Heyman improvements. The character is well-known and spans many Disney product lines albiet in a supporting role. However several films and many real life depictions would suggest the benchmark for notability has been met. Although the character is alwas associated with Cinderella the opposite is also usually true, Cinderella is usually shown in context of her "evil" sisters. -- Banjeboi 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above: this is mere trivia gussied up in encyclopedic clothing. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the GNG for want of reliable sources. Deor (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2009 (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.