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 Keep Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Jesse Aarons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of Bridge to Terabithia (novel) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More than one appearance and quite notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree. central character to two films and book, about which much has been written. There will be scholarly analysis of this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as one of the two main characters of a popular book and film. There should be enough to write to justify having an independent article. Everyking (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. No need established in any way for an independent article. This serves merely to accumulate fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed, this article is full of fancruft and plot summary. Virtually everything here is already covered in different words on the three Bridge to Terabithia articles. No scholarly research is included, nor seems likely to be. Jphillst (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very significant books, major character implies notability enough for an article. Or of course a merge would be conceivable keeping the content, for it really doesn't matter whether or not the articles are combination articles. But that this was proposed as a delete indicated there is no intention of keeping the content, so it would be better to keep it separate to prevent the removal of content from a supposedly merged article DGG (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, according to WP:N, an article topic that is deemed unnotable doesn't necessarily mean that the content is unnotable for its parent article, so a merge isn't out of the question. However, I still think it would be better to delete this article and keep the separate content on the three BTT articles. There's nothing about Jesse here that isn't already mentioned in the other articles. Jphillst (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2008 (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.