Talk:Mortimer Folchart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability requires non-trivial coverage in reliable sources about the topic of the article. Of the multiple "sources" in the article,

Prime examples of trivial coverage if I ever saw. Reverting to redirect. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a fundamental difference of opinion on this. The main characters of notable series have routinely been deemed notable in AfDs and talk page discussions. As for the sources in the article, they were all added nearly two years ago, before the movie was released and before the third book was published - there are doubtless more available now. (I don't know what you mean by putting quotation marks around the word sources, but it strikes me as quite condescending.) The fact is that this is a character from a notable book series/film(s), created by a notable author, portrayed by a notable actor. A fictional character doesn't have to be Harry Potter or Macbeth to be notable. I will request further input at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, as it seems neither of us are likely to change our minds. I hope we can agree to leave the articles in place until such a time as consensus is reached on the proper course of action. Best, faithless (speak) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the articles which I object to redirecting are this one, Meggie Folchart, and Inkspell (I can't understand why one book out of a trilogy would be singled out as non-notable). The other characters were rightfully redirected, IMO. faithless (speak) 08:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed--Meggie and Mo (his full name is typically not used) are characters that have appeared in multiple notable books (3) and one movie adaptation. Redirection is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]