Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drizella Tremaine (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 no consensus. A number of comments had merge as an alternative choice, so that probably is the trend of the discussion. It falls short of actual consensus, however. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drizella Tremaine

Character is not notable, and the article is essentially just a plot summary with some fancruft. SilentAria ^talk 09:09, 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." Nominator deleted another page with the exact same wording.Ikip (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete major notability problems. Also seems to be entirely original research. In the unlikely event of reliable sources being found concentrating on her, then there might be some point in allowing recreation, but I doubt that there'd be any point keeping any of the current article's material. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Cinderella (1950 film). Original AfD closed as redirect, and that seems a perfectly reasonable end result for an article on a non-notable fictional character. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 18:54, 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 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ugly sisters which seems more notable but could use some help. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 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 The character is a notable part of two different films, and that makes her notable enough to have her own article. Dream Focus 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. You should read our policies on notability before makin claims about them. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It passes those by any reasonable interpretation. Seriously now, one of the wicked stepsisters of Cinderella, a story that has been retold in literature and film over nearly two centuries? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:57, 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) 22:11, 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} 23:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take a closer look at what I said in that link provided. I said that I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting, "should the consensus deem it so". I also said that "I don't see anything that can really be merged from them". Perhaps I'm not very good at explaining things clearly, but those statements do not mean that I believe that merging/redirecting is a better solution for these problematic articles than deletion. I still stand by my nomination and firmly believe that the articles should be deleted based on WP:NOTE (as well as WP:V and WP:WAF), and WP:PLOT, disputed or no. Please don't use your interpretation of my words to justify a "Keep" vote. --SilentAria ^talk 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT, though, which is why this notable film and literary character with mergeable information has appropriate inofrmation, especially the out of universe information that is worth keeping in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to film article (again), and lock the redirect. Unnotable fim character with no mergeable information as it is all a repeat of the plot summary. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT, and violates both WP:WAF and WP:MOSFILM as it would not be appropriate content in the main film article either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and article can be written here. Whether or not it will, I don't know.[1][2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep or merge well sourced article, meeting notability guidelines. Fisher has some potentional sources. Sections of the book fisher mentions state: " Studies in American humor‎ - Page 69 by Southwest Texas State University. Dept. of English - Humor - 1994 Drizella and Anastasia's bustles are so big that they facilitate the clumsy women's ... The same comic exaggeration occurs the next day as Drizella and then" Ikip (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:The Walt Disney Company, Talk:Cinderella_(1950_film), and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disney page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Merge keepable info into main article or "list of... characters page per nom. SpikeJones (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge either standalone article or on Ugly sisters article. notable in several media. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 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]
Delete or merge pernom. Mere fancruft that has no real world significance and clearly fails the GNG. Trivia with a footnote next to it is still trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither WP:PERNOM nor WP:ITSCRUFT are valid reasons to delete something with real world significance that clearly passes the GNG. Calling one of the wicked stepsisters of a classic work that has been adapted multiple times in various media "trivial" is about as off base as it gets. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom".
  - Which would make sense if the nomination wasn't a disproven claim of WP:JNN followed by a claim of WP:ITSCRUFT that was addressed through article improvement. A character who has appeared in multiple major works of fiction and as such has been written about in reliable secondary sources is neither "non-notable" nor "cruft." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could be wrong, but I think "Drizella Tremaine" has appeared in only Disney's film version of Cinderella and its sequels and adaptations. The character is a specific version of one of the ugly stepsisters, but it is not really accurate to count every version of the Cinderella story as featuring the character "Drizella". Powers ^T 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete i find no sources, certainly not any in the article as it stands, that establish independent notability for this fictional entity apart from the works of fiction it inhabits. As far as the character's role in the disney films, i leave it to the wisdom of the editors on those articles whether it needs greater mention in those articles, but i suppose if they agree, any additional sourced information not already present in those articles (does not seem to be any) could go there.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look harder, because I found and added sources with ease that clearly and decisively establish independent notability for this fictional entity apart from the works of fiction it inhabits. Anyone with any real knowledge on fictional characters, film, etc. knows this subject is notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial trivia. Some fictional characters are notable in and off themselves because they are discussed at great length in a great many sources (i.e. Hamlet, Bilbo Bagins, Bart Simpson). A mention in "a guide to disney animation" or whatever that "she is the sister with the black hair and is ugly" is not that sort of non-trivial coverage. Again, for the fifth time this week it seems, please stop telling me that i haven't looked hard enough, or didn't try, or whatever your next speculative accusation will be. I accept we disagree -- but i looked at that source (and the others) and find them wanting. This is a content fork from the articles on the works of fiction themselves. Bali ultimate (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you actually think appearances in a major film series, multiple novels, play reenactments, on a snow globe, as live action performers at perhaps the most notable theme park in the world, etc. is "trivial," then this is not a subject for which you know about. That may sound harsh, but it has to be said, because some of these deletes are so either false or off base that they cannot be replied to in any other way. It's not a matter of subjective opinion. The facts are this character has major appearances in major works of fiction and is familiar to millions of people and relevant to students of popular culture, film, etc. We can verify its content in reliable sources. These are indisputable facts and I have gone to lengths not just commenting in the AfD, but actually working to expand the article. I don't mind people holding our content to scrutiny and challenging us to improve it. But I do mind arguing with those who are not helping to improve it and are unwilling to recognize improvements or factual presentations when they come up. The bottom line is the article has improved to demonstrate that is notable and covered in multiple reliable sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think encyclopedia's should cover everything from a real world perspective and not every fictional character ever is worthy of inclusion. I believe substantial real world coverage beyond plot summaries that name check a minor characters name is needed for inclusion. I feel that you have no business around such articles, since you're ability to assess the nature of encyclopedia topics is poor. Very poor. I think that's an undisputable fact. I understand that this is something we just have to live with on wikipedia and that you think poorly of my judgement. Believe me, the feeling is mutual.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your personal opinion of what Wikipedia should be is irrelevant. Years of consensus backs up this article's inclusion, because Drizella is the subject of substantial real world coverage beyond plot summaries and is hardly a minor character. I strongly urge you to focus on content for which you have a degree of expertise or even amateur knowledge, because you have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with elements of fiction in this and other discussions. I am confident that there are areas for which you can contribute constructively, but here, it is just unhelpful as we obviously have a notable subject verifiable through reliable sources and we need help for improving it, not dismissive remarks that interfere with that improvement; however, I do appreciate and acknowledge that you amended your stance after discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know what? Just this one time, for you. Let's assess the three sources in the article.
1. "The Animated Movie Guide" [3]. Section on Disney's Cindarella, there is a listing of voice actors that goes "tktktk Eleanor Audley (Lady Tremaine), Rhoda Williams (Drizella), Lucille Bliss (Anastasia), tktktk". That's it. No mention of this character in the plot summary at all.
2. "The Trades.com DVD review of Cindarella III." Two mentions: A. ".... Fairy Godmother fumbles the wand, she grabs it up and makes off with it, straight to her sister Drizella, and their mother, Lady Tremayne;" and, B. " Russi Taylor turns in a dual performance for the Fairy Godmother and Drizella."
3. "Studies in American humor By Southwest Texas State University. Dept. of English". 1. "...and Drizella provide obvious counters: Their exaggerated feet, shown naked much more than cindarellas, overtly emphasize their (the ugly sisters) physical nature, underscoring Julius Heuscher's point that unlike Cindarella, they..." (end fragment).

Yes, I deem this all trivia that does not establish this fictional character is notable independent from the works of fiction it inhabits. The only substantial stuff at all appears to be (i say appears because, like you, i don't have a copy of the book and the free preview is out of context fragments) in the last source, which is about the counterpoint between cindarella and the ugly sisters.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - There are eleven sources in the article, not three and collectively they present non-trivial coverage that establish this fictional character is notable independent from the works of fiction it inhabits. It meets a common sense or logical standard of notability in any event. Per WP:PRESERVE, there is simply NO objective reason for deleting sourced material concerning a subject that is relevant to various other articles that we currently have. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's polish off the rest of them, shall we?

1." Disney A to Z: The Official Encyclopedia (Third Edition) (Hardcover) (Disney Editions), 2006" Non-rs for notability.
2. "UCL Union LGBT Society (2009)" website listing for this apparently amateur theatrical groups dramatization of cinderalla. "Drusilla (Sam Brearley) is the eldest of the vile, scheming sisters of Cinderella. She loves to dress in the latest fashions and taunt Cinderella – when she isn’t busy clawing her younger sister’s eyes out." that's it.
3. "Multiculturalism and the Mouse: race and sex in Disney entertainment." The word "Drusilla" appears in 1 page of this 260 page work. "...(the) sisters, Drusilla and Anastasia, are bitterly jealous of the girl's charm and beauty. Disney turns his back on the source, where the sisters were themselves "beautiful and fair in appearance." The Grimms' Cindarella appears non-descript until a magical makeover." That's it.
4. "Disney Princess #2: Once Upon a Princes (Disney Press, 2003), 201." Non-rs for establishing notability.
5. "Lara Bergen, Walt Disney's Cinderella (Hyperion Book CH, 2005)." Brief note on page two about Drizella's being a character in disney fiction.
6. "Disney Storybook Artists, Disney Princess Collection (Disney Press, 2006), 63. " Non-rs for establishing notability.
7. "Disney Princess Ultimate Sticker Book (DK CHILDREN, 2003), 8. " non-rs for establishing notability. just has stickers of disney characters for kids.
8. "^ Julie Neal and Mike Neal, The Complete Guide to Walt Disney World 2008 (Coconut Press, 2007), 314." text for families going to disney world: "Everyone will love Anastasia and Drizella, Cinderella's evil stepsisters, who wander the room with Lady Tremaine..."[11]

Yes, this is all trivial coverage.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it's a blatant mischaracterization of non-trivial coverage. The fact she appears in so many sources is non-trivial in its own right. Of the perhaps billions of fictional characters, only so many receive this many appearances and out of universe commentaries. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Bali ultimate for taking the time to demonstrate the patent falsehoods peddled above. Well done! Eusebeus (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed patently false that the wicked stepsisters of a multi-film franchise which are covered in numerous reliable sources are "cruft" or "trivial", which is why I am pleased Bali has amended to a merge potential, which is far more defensible of a stance than to delete, which is indefensiable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the WP:GNG for want of reliable sources. I'm flabbergasted that A Nobody actually referenced a snow globe (with an external link to a commercial site, no less) and a children's sticker book in the article. That's going a bit far even for him. Deor (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes the WP:GNG due to the WP:Reliable sources added and readily available through online searches. Any honest read of the article and source availability would show as much. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:34, 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.