Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itaril

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. I'm sorry Zacharykirk but there's not enough verifiable information about this subject yet Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itaril

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

As per WP:CRYSTAL, there are insufficient details about this character at present to merit a Wikipedia article. No reliable sources provided. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

zacharykirk: I am the contributor to the page of Itaril. It is, I assure you, accurate information. I cannot give much detail of her because there isn't much detail of her in the book of The Hobbit. Theonering.net is, I assure you, a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination pretty much covers it. If the character receives more coverage from secondary sources down the line, then an article might be warranted. Right now the only source we have is a fansite, which is, of course, unacceptable. Millahnna (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My sources aren't as reliable as I thought. But I'm pretty sure this is accurate information. I don't know off of the top of my head another source for this but I'm sure there is something that can back this information up. --zacharykirk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing solid indicating that Itaril is going to actually be a character in The Hobbit at the present time. It is nothing but rumors at this point. All there has been to go on so far is a casting sheet that was supposedly leaked way back in January 2010 and a report from Deadline Hollywood (who even claimed that Saoirse Ronan was rumored to be playing Itaril) from last November. Even TheOneRing.net, who you say claims to know that the part of Itaril is a certainty, has never actually said anything on the matter other than say that Saoirse Ronan is rumored to be in negotiations for the role, but that they don't really know for sure what part she is actually up for. It may very well be true that Itaril is a character in The Hobbit, but the article should be deleted until we actually get confirmation from the studio on the matter.TheLastAmigo (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no particular prejudice against recreation once sourced, but with the advice that a single character is probably better covered in a list of characters article or in a section on the adaptation notes of the film's article. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has been confirmed on one of my sources, which is clearly visible on my Itaril page, Reelzchannel.com that Saoirse Ronan is, in fact, going to play the character entitled Itaril. If you click on a video interview with Saoirse Ronan on the movie HANNA, they confirm this rumor at the end of it. That is why I made this page because it was officially confirmed with an official movie news database. Please do a little more research before you delete a page with accurate information on it. Thank you for all of your concerns, but this information can be backed up by many other sources if you care to look. --zacharykirk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Reelzchannel.com is not an official source. The only official sources are Warner Bros./New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson. They can say whatever they want on Reelzchannel.com. I mean, The Hollywood Reporter, an industry trade, reported that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was going to play The Holiday Killer in The Dark Knight Rises, which turned out to be completely false, and they have a much better reputation than Reelzchannel.com (which is, FYI, nothing more than a generic E! Channel wannabe). I don't mean to sound rude, but your line of reasoning is ridiculous. The page should be deleted. End of story.TheLastAmigo (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody has even mentioned the fact that the page looks like it was thrown together in less than 5 minutes. You didn't link any sources whatsoever. Your sourcing consisted of "This can be confirmed by Reelzchannel.com and theonering.net, which are reliable sources" or something to that effect. Like we should just take your word at face value. And where have you read at TheOneRing.net that Itaril is a confirmed character? I've been going to that site almost everyday for the past 18 months and never once have they ever confirmed Itaril as being a character in The Hobbit. Neither have they debunked it. They just report it as being a rumor. Even Saoirse Ronan hasn't said anything other than she'd love to work with Peter Jackson again and wants a part in the films.TheLastAmigo (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the Reelzchannel.com interview you cited, which can be found at http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/283371/hanna/. All they said is that she is currently filming The Hobbit (which is untrue as she is, by her own admission, not even signed yet) and mentioned nothing about the character of Itaril. Your claims are very misleading.TheLastAmigo (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existence of an article about a character about which nothing is known, as fact or otherwise, other than who might be cast to play her is unacceptable. I'd wait a while, maybe until a full cast list with character summaries is released by the filmmakers. Avalyn (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate the insults I have received from the majority of you. If I were you I'd do my homework before you call my page a bunch of nonesense. You should wait awhile before you choose to delete something YOU'RE not sure is true or not. Until this page can be officially proven to be untrue, LEAVE IT ALONE! --Zacharykirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharykirk (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is here to report facts, not things that might be true. Deletion discussions last for a week, if you gave reliable sources, you'd be better off posting them instead of getting upset with other editors. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, give us some sources. And I mean OFFICIAL sources such as press releases from the studio, comments from Peter Jackson, or even confirmation by Saoirse Ronan herself. Not something you read in some article one time or some throwaway comment you heard from a hack entertainment journalist on Reelzchannel.com. I mean something solid that justifies the existence of the page. Also, are you seriously telling... no, not telling... ORDERING Wikipedia administrators not to delete "your" page? You don't own the page, Wikipedia does. Whatever you write becomes the property of Wikipedia and they can do with it as they please. And that includes deleting "your" page if other editors deem it to be unworthy. And as for doing my homework, I linked one of YOUR sources to this very discussion, and that source turned out to be complete nonsense. Why don't you do your homework instead of telling us to? The burden of proof is on you, not us. TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this character will appear in the upcoming movie, let alone have an important enough role for a stand-alone article. Probably could have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2011 (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.