Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements: Difference between revisions
Listing Astrid Peth(2nd nomination) |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Saints Row series}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Saints Row series}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oobleck}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oobleck}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional penguins}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patusan}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patusan}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders}} |
Revision as of 22:46, 23 June 2010
![]() | Points of interest related to Fiction on Wikipedia: Category – Deletions |
![]() |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fictional elements. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fictional elements|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) may be relevant here.
- Related deletion sorting
Fictional elements
- 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Astrid Peth
- Astrid Peth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons suggested for Adam Mitchell. Companion has only appeared in a single episode and fails to warrant an article of her own. magnius (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Hardly your typical one-shot character. Plenty of out of universe information in the article meeting the WP:GNG by light years. That its also considered a Good Article also works heavilly in its favor. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- although I would typically say merge for a simple one episode character, there is enough info here to warrent its own article and enough references to justify notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep GA articles need to be delisted before being nominated for deletion. Keep it anyway per the other information in the article. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one episode character but there are enough sources to WP:verify notability including reception. Might merge to the article about the episode itself but that can be discussed later. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2010 (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.
- 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Christina de Souza
- Lady Christina de Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For the same reasons stated for Adam Mitchell. Companion has only appeared in a single episode and fails to warrant an article of her own. Merger and deletion of main article suggested. magnius (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Plenty of out of universe information in the article, so hardly your typical one-shot character. Meets the GNG by light years, and there's simply too much verifiable out of universe information in the article that a merge isn't a viable option either. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: My reading of WP:N for these articles is the amount out of universe information available. Although this character appears in only one episode, she is played by a well known actress, and the casting made an impact at the time so there are lots of production and reception information. Edgepedia (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of independent RS coverage. The fact that the character wasn't all that important isn't actually a detriment to notability, given the coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seen enough sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2010 (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.
- 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 List of Waterloo Road characters. T. Canens (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rose Kelly (Waterloo Road)
- Rose Kelly (Waterloo Road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character who does not meet WP:GNG and has only in-universe importance. Claritas § 13:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Neelix (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a list of such minor characters. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is at List of Waterloo Road characters, for your information, although if this and other articles on individual characters are deleted, it will probably have to be split. Claritas § 19:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no way to WP:verifynotability in an out-of-universe sense. Can't find sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2010 (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.
- 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. T. Canens (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albion (Marvel Comics)
- Albion (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character(s) who fail(s) WP:N. There's simply no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources for either of them. Notability isn't inherited from the comics they appear in. Claritas § 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as already covering multiple characters. Per Albion_(disambiguation), it's clear that there is going to be difficulty sourcing this without hitting false positives, for example adding "pendragon" to the search just gives tons of false positives. Thus, lack of evidence cannot be reasonably interpreted as evidence of lack in this case. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, there's a policy called WP:NRVE....if you can't find sources, "it's difficult to find sources" isn't a reason to keep......Claritas § 18:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jclemens' interesting interpretation. :) BOZ (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and, interestingly, per JClemens explanation of his keep. As he rightly points out there are no RS asserting notability, and it seems that it is unlikely any can reasonably be found. Therefore by policy it should be a delete, with no prejudice to recreation if sources are found in future. Verbal chat 20:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete tried to WP:Verify Notability but couldn't find reliable independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2010 (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.
- 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 List of The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Molly Blane
- Molly Blane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect. There is no real need to be here... Hobit (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Hobit. So little content, we can probably keep all of it. --GRuban (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question With which article should it be merged? Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good question. I'd say a characters of "The Unit" page should be created. The one list on the main page isn't enough IMO. But for now, to the main article...Hobit (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question With which article should it be merged? Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have just created a very basic List of The Unit characters, so merge to that.--BelovedFreak 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Hobit, GRuban, etc. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:40, 28 June 2010 (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.
- 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 List of The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte Ryan
- Charlotte Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletecan find no real world significant coverage in reliable sources or anything else that demonstrates notability. Delete as there appears to be no list of characters to merge or redirect to.--BelovedFreak 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge--just because a "list of [minor] chracters" article doesn't yet exist doesn't mean this isn't an appropriate target to merge non-notable fictional elements into. By the "doesn't exist yet" logic, each minor character could be nominated in turn and deleted--that's not an outcome that makes sense or serves our readers. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that merge would be the better option and if someone creates the article, that's what I would advocate. Don't see how to merge into nothing though.--BelovedFreak 08:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with above, but think it should be a Keep until it can be merged. Sf46 (talk)
- Merge into the List per Bf. No separate sources, not much information. --GRuban (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:42, 28 June 2010 (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.
- 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 List of The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffy Gerhardt
- Tiffy Gerhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although lots of passing mentions in google/gnews, I can see no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing to indicate that the character meets notability guidelines. Since there appears to be no appropriate list of characters to merge or redirect to, delete.--BelovedFreak 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per same reasons as listed in deletion request for another character of the smae tv show: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Ryan. Sf46 (talk)
- Merge into the List per Bf. No separate sources, not much information. --GRuban (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of The Unit characters - no notability. Claritas § 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:41, 28 June 2010 (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.
- 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. Although the arguments in favour of keeping this article make some valid points, the consensus seems to be that this list is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants
- List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list has WP:NOTDIR issues, because it is an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no coverage of superhuman "characters who can manipulate plants" in reliable sources: [1]. Claritas § 18:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The real question here is how do we limit the characters listed on the list. Do we limit the lists to characters just characters with stand-alone articles that assert the character's notability independently of the works they are form? (The position I would naturally default to.) Do we also include characters that have an entry on a character list? Or some other inclusion critical. Because including all fictional characters who can manipulate plants is just too abstract of an inclusion criteria to be suitable for a stand-alone list without running afoul of WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. The base subject, Plant manipulation in fiction, isn't notable and does not have an article. So the list has to explain why fictional characters who can manipulate plants are notable instead of just being random trivia. —Farix (t | c) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would go with how major or notable the character in the story then. If a character's plant manipulation is a major factor in the story for example that would be worthy of inclusion or if the character is notable enough itself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Importance in a work of fiction is too arbitrary of a standard, based entirely an editor's personal opinion or analyst, and usually unverifiable. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I dispute the status of this as cross-categorization (after all, plant manipulation is a "real", if lame, fictional superpower), I still don't see any good reason this is a list rather than just a category. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perfectly valid list article. Any character featured in a notable work should be listed, not just those with their own articles. It shows how often notable media uses this in it. All information is confirmed in the primary source. List articles don't need coverage in reviews somewhere. Dream Focus 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete this might be more appropriate as a category. This list doesn't provide much more than the characters' names. Their source of power is an in-universe detail and doesn't seem appropriate for organizational purposes. The publisher/medium information can just as easily be viewed at individual articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, fails WP:NOTDIR which reads People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Fictional characters that manipulate plants are not a culturally significant phenomenon for our purposes unless there is adequate sourcing to prove it, which I cannot find. ThemFromSpace 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorize. List brings little to the table. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55 22 June 2010 (GMT)
- The list shows what series they are from. A category wouldn't do that. Easier to navigate this way. Dream Focus 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh lordy, could there ever be a more arbitrary collection of information? wikia:list exists for this cruft, and Dream Focus is an administrator there so should be more than happy to oblige in transwikiing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, this applies to several (possibly all) of the other superhero lists in this article's see also section. These were created historically when the categories were deleted. Any chance they can be co-nominated? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally dislike mass nominations except in uncontroversial circumstances, because they don't allow for the merits of each individual list/article to be taken into account. If this AFD closes as delete or categorise, I'll nominate them too. Feel free to do so yourself, if you'd like to speed the process up. Claritas § 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has an objective inclusion criteria, and is not too broad or narrow. I don't agree that this is unreasonable cross-categorization, since someone with plant manipulation abilities would necessarily be a fictional character. As with any other list, content needs to be limited to that which is verifiable. Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it have "objective inclusion criteria"? The majority of the entries are utterly unrelated to one another, as much as if they were grouped by eye colour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gardening is a form of "plant manipulation", so your claim that only fictional characters can "manipulate plants" is hardly correct..Claritas § 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it have "objective inclusion criteria"? The majority of the entries are utterly unrelated to one another, as much as if they were grouped by eye colour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, of course. <;)>But first merge with List of fictional plants who can manipulate fictional characters, which should be started with Audrey II.</;)> Oh, and it's been 'rescued' — wikia:list:List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Feed me, Seymour!
- Delete a coatrack of primary research that violates WP:OR... don't just make up categories and then start hanging examples in there... non encyclopedic cross category which goes against WP:NOTDIRArskwad (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic list based on trivial intersection. While not per se OR, it would be hard to keep it out of this list since the concept of "plant manipulation" is not well defined and is treated differently in different fictional works. However, even if well defined and sourced the list would still be a directory based on a trivial intersection, some which Wikipedia does not include. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if only to counter the illogical arguments above. IINFO doesn't apply, and this is NOT a trivial intersection. A trivial intersection is things like "financiers who parachute" where the two categorizations are unrelated--this case is not that. Likewise, any list that can have articulable inclusion criteria isn't IINFO, because it is, by definition, discriminate. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2010 (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.
- 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 List of Dune terminology. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suk School
- Suk School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional school - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Despite the fact that the article is well written, I feel it's essentially fancruft - pure and simple in-universe plot description. It's hence a violation of WP:PLOT. Claritas § 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UndecidedInterestingly enough Google Books for Suk school finds any number of references that predate Dune, e.g., this one, which appear to suggest Herbert took a previous term and adapted it, as he did with so many other parts of Dune. I'm intrigued, but not in a position to research it more at present. Are we agreed that if we can add the real world origin of the term that appeared in the notable fictional franchise, we have a keepable article? Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Unless there is significant coverage of the fictional school in reliable independent sources, the article is not keepable. The etymology of the word is essentially irrelevant. Claritas § 07:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Suk School' also appears to be the name of a few institutions in the Middle East and Asia. Curious. --Gwern (contribs) 18:11 22 June 2010 (GMT)
- No. Unless there is significant coverage of the fictional school in reliable independent sources, the article is not keepable. The etymology of the word is essentially irrelevant. Claritas § 07:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Dune terminology. --Gwern (contribs) 18:11 22 June 2010 (GMT)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect — to List of Dune terminology. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to list of Dune terminology. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm OK with a merge. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could this be turned into a disambiguation page with a link to the term in list of Dune terminology, are any of those middle east schools notable enough for an article? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's little significant coverage in reliable English language sources, but they may well be. Claritas § 09:06, 3 July 2010 (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.
- 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. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unseen University
- Unseen University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional educational establishment. No significant coverage in independent third-party sources, so fails WP:GNG. While the last AFD was closed as "keep", no significant coverage was demonstrated, and no references have since been added to the article. Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) by consensus, so the fact that it is an element in a notable fiction should not be a justification for keeping. Claritas § 16:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I see nothing that has changed for the worse since the last AfD, just 4 months ago. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 17:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am at a loss to understand why this article, out of all the Discworld articles, is being repeatedly targeted for deletion. This is a very notable fictional location in a very notable series of novels. It currently serves as the redirect for several notable fictional characters, such as Librarian (Discworld), Mustrum Ridcully and Ponder Stibbons. Were this article deleted, all those other articles would have to be recreated as well. It's not as if this is the only, or even the worst, example of its type on Wikipedea. I fail to see why it is being made a whipping boy. This article is much improved since its last AfD and will improve in future. Serendipodous 18:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you substantiate the claim that it is "very notable". There's currently no sources at all in the article, and I can't find any significant independent coverage on the net. Thanks. Claritas § 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here it is referenced in dozens of scholarly papers. That should show that it at least is notable. Serendipodous 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll deal with the first two pages of these papers:
- "UC can build on land-grant idea" isn't about the Discworld plot element. It just happens to use the phrase.
- "AMERICA'S GREAT SUCCESS STORY--THE LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY" is the same paper under a different title.
- "White Knowledge and the Cauldron of Story: The Use of Allusion..." isn't independent because it's written by Pratchett
- "The Blame Culture: school effectiveness guarantees failures–Discuss" makes a reference to it, but doesn't exactly provide significant coverage.
- "22.1 Coreset for Directional Width" isn't independent because it's written by Pratchett
- "He Do the Time Police in Different Voices" - mentions in passing, not a reliable source.
- "The space eater" - mentions a passing, again not a RS
- "Islam and Democracy in Turkey: Toward a reconciliation?" - nothing to do with Pratchett
- "Mathematics, the media, and the public" - some coverage.
- "RANDOM JOTTINGS" - not RS
- "Enhanced User Experiences through Relationship Management" - mentioned in passing, not significant coverage.
- ALEXIAD - doesn't seem to be a RS
- " Discussion Paper on Copyright and Intellectual Property Issues in the open and E-Learning Environment" - no significant coverage.
- "A study of the translation of names and invented words in Terry Pratchett's Soul Music" - not significant coverage, translation study.
- "Teach the Children: Education and Knowledge in Recent Children's Fantasy" - can't access to see whether there's significant coverage.
A lot of trivial mentions, and little substantial coverage. 21:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reasons as last time. Nominator is encouraged to add sources for this notable fictional element. (Hint: the previous nomination has plenty) Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no way this should be a redlink. It would be tenable to argue for a trim, merge and redirect to the amazingly notable Discworld, but it's simply untenable to argue for outright deletion because this is such a plausible search term. Speedy close and take the keep/redirect discussion to the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep : Renominating after 4 months without any policy having changed is simply forum shopping. If the nom has problems with the previous closure, DRV is the correct venue. --Cyclopiatalk 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Seems to be a frivolous nomination. A search of scholarly sources immediately reveals detailed coverage in sources such as "The character name translations in the Finnish translation of Terry Pratchet's Lords and Ladies". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not significant coverage of the university, that's just someone using the names of the fictional elements as part of an exercise in translation comparison......Claritas § 13:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am not a big fan of articles on fictional places and people, but if we are going to have them, we certainly should have one on this topic. I see no more reason to delete this article than to delete all the very many other articles on Pratchett places and people. Deleting this would also, as suggested above, mess up a lot of links. The Pratchett fans need to work on sources, but is anyone challenging any material here? It all looks correct. Readers will want to come to read it. We would be the worse without it. Deletion should not be considered. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If I remember the last AfD, the librarian was actually notable, while the university was not. Probably a few other characters in there with RS mentions. Best to keep in all in one place until someone wants to make a bunch of GAs out it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article should not be removed until there is something better to replace it with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It was nominated in November of 2009, then in February of 2010, and now again in June of 2010. We don't need to keep doing this every few months. Notability was established already. Those who actually have read the series say so. Dream Focus 21:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Even on their own, multiple widespread passing references to the Unseen University would evidence its notability in contemporary popular culture and beyond. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2010 (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.
- 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. A reasonable case has been made that the sources are out there. No prejudice against renomination a few months down the line if they aren't found and added. Shimeru 17:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
X-Mansion
- X-Mansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional institution which fails WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Claritas § 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Check out the Doris Kindersly books, you know the 'Ultimate Guide To Whatever'. Plus, the structure has been around since the 1960s. It has been featured in no less then three major motion pictures, multiple cartoon series, dozens of series, thousands of comic books, who knows how many video games and heck, it's been part of multiple action figure displays. Lots42 (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A "Doris Kindersly" book certainly doesn't meet WP:RS, and can't be used to substantiate notability. Claritas § 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are the Doris books not reliable? Lots42 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to one of teh X-Men articles. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major fictional element of a franchise that's spanned 3 genres (comics, TV, film). There's plenty of discussion of the building: this and this for starters. Since integrating this into any other X-men article might well violate WP:LENGTH despite any efforts at cleanup, it's clear that the best thing to do is to keep such a notable fictional element in its own article. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not independent coverage - it's published by Marvel. There's no genuine notability or significant independent coverage, and per WP:PLOT, Wikipedia isn't for detailed coverage of the plots of works of fiction. We should have plot summaries, and if WP:LENGTH is becoming an issue, the content should go. Claritas § 07:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - highly notable aspect of the X-Men comic book franchise for over 40 years, appearing in all aspects of the media from comics, to television, to film. Same as Baxter Building. BOZ (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But no significant independent coverage in reliable sources.... Claritas § 12:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Artw found some independent sources, so that requirement should now be satisfied. BOZ (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would happier with a few more, TBH (and the second one I added may not qualify as independent). Still, they are certainly out there for the finding. Artw (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ......significant coverage in multiple independent sources is needed. Claritas § 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would happier with a few more, TBH (and the second one I added may not qualify as independent). Still, they are certainly out there for the finding. Artw (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Artw found some independent sources, so that requirement should now be satisfied. BOZ (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But no significant independent coverage in reliable sources.... Claritas § 12:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per lack of independent reliable sources. Reyk YO! 13:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There's plenty of independent reliable sources.[2][3] I didn't see any that are substantial, but I didn't look to hard. You have to sort look through the books to find ones that aren't by Marvel, but they exist.[4][5][6] We need someone with Lexis Nexis. There's bound to be articles on the special effects in the movies in offline magazines. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment If this is going to be deleted, I would take a look, for example, at Asteroid M, which is much worse off than this in terms of references, notability, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep is a major comic book landmark. Even if there is not enough reliable third-party sources (though I disagree) I would say this is a case where a concensus can be reached to ignore all rules.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (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.
- 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. JForget 15:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Devon School
- The Devon School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional school. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:N. Claritas § 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination is false as a search immediately reveals coverage in scholarly sources such as On the Playing Fields of Devon. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That paper contains significant coverage of A Separate Peace, but not the fictional school itself. Claritas § 13:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Colonel Warden. Edward321 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Likely subject of search, in major novel, discussed in scholarly works SouthernCritic111 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2010 (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.
- 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 redirect to Dragon Ball. It can be un-redirected when and if reliable secondary sources to support it are found. Shimeru 08:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saiyan (Dragon Ball)
- Saiyan (Dragon Ball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOT as containing an extensive plot summary with not a single third-party source to provide real-world relevance, such as reception, development, and . Wikipedia is not a fansite. Article was previously redirected twice to the main article of the work, Dragon Ball, however, the redirects have been repeatedly reverted. —Farix (t | c) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article was redirected with no consensus, and as such it was reverted. A discussion had taken place about merging Super Saiyan into this article but an overzealous editor decided on their own to redirect both to the Dragon Ball article. The article needs work but that only means it should be improved, not deleted. Keep in mind we are talking about an article that exists in 12 languages and has hundreds of edits. PeRshGo (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this excuses the fact that the article fundamentally fails WP:V along with two whole sections of WP:NOT and is completely non-notable because it has not been covered by a single reliable third-party source. As for there being no consenses for the original redirect, this discussion proves that to be completely false. There was a discussion and a consensus formed to redirect both articles to Dragon Ball. There was no discussion and consensus to restore either article. You did that entirely on your own. —Farix (t | c) 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the text. That was in reference to the Super Saiyan article not this one. One person saying they should do it and one agreeing with no further discussion is NOT consensus. Even the issue of merging the Super Saiyan article was still in debate. And keep in mind you're referencing a discussion that never took place on the Saiyan talk page. The merger was completely out of line with proper procedure. And no, I have not stated that this is a perfect article but it needs improvement, not deletion. PeRshGo (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion was in reference to both articles. Just because the discussion occurred in one place doesn't mean that the consensus to redirect both articles to Dragon Ball invalid. —Farix (t | c) 02:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the text. That was in reference to the Super Saiyan article not this one. One person saying they should do it and one agreeing with no further discussion is NOT consensus. Even the issue of merging the Super Saiyan article was still in debate. And keep in mind you're referencing a discussion that never took place on the Saiyan talk page. The merger was completely out of line with proper procedure. And no, I have not stated that this is a perfect article but it needs improvement, not deletion. PeRshGo (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this excuses the fact that the article fundamentally fails WP:V along with two whole sections of WP:NOT and is completely non-notable because it has not been covered by a single reliable third-party source. As for there being no consenses for the original redirect, this discussion proves that to be completely false. There was a discussion and a consensus formed to redirect both articles to Dragon Ball. There was no discussion and consensus to restore either article. You did that entirely on your own. —Farix (t | c) 04:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect restore redirect per the consensus at the merge discussion that occured quite awhile ago at Talk:Super_Saiyan#Merge_with_Saiyan_Article and with Super Saiyan's later merging to Dragon Ball (a redirect PeRshGo has wrongly undone as well); PeRshGo's inappropriate dismissal of the consensus there and the overall clean up of DB articles is deserving of a troutslap. Unnotable fictional concept with no actual significant coverage in any reliable source, and as nom notes, Wikipedia is not a fansite. There is an active Dragon Ball wikia for that sort of extensive, minute OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note once again that you are referencing the Super Saiyan page, not the Saiyan (Dragon Ball) page. If I went over to Klingon's talk page and argued that we merge Vulcan (Star Trek) with Star Trek you can be certain it would get reverted. Not even a merger tag was put up. It was just done. PeRshGo (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am referencing both. It was done in an appropriate fashion. Your disagreeing with them and randomly deciding to undo them ages later is your issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You aren't at any point referencing both discussions. Here's the discussion on Saiyan (Dragon Ball)'s talk page, Talk:Saiyan_(Dragon_Ball)#Merge in Super Saiyan here. You'll notice that merging the page with Dragon Ball wasn't agreed to or even mentioned. You just did it, no tag, no anything. PeRshGo (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit summary notes it was done per consensus, so take your bad faith, thinly veiled negative claims elsewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't follow anything close appropriate procedure so I reverted it. If you can show me a merger tag, or even one comment on Talk: Saiyan (Dragon Ball) that would be something. But you can't show either because they never happened. PeRshGo (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both articles were properly tagged for merger as is clear in the edit histories[7][8] before being redirected. The discussion occurred properly at Super Saiyan re merging the two articles, and the consensus was to redirect BOTH to Dragon Ball. Discussions do not occur in both places, nor is it supposed to. FYI, one of the participants in that discussion was an admin, so I seriously doubt he wouldn't have said something if procedure had not been done properly, but of course it was. You simply disagreed with the result and came later and undid it all, twice, despite being told it was by consensus, which it was. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, that was the tag for Super Sayian to be merged into Saiyan, not Saiyan to be merged into Dragon Ball. You can defend it all you want but the history doesn't lie. A discussion to redirect the whole page to Dragon Ball should have come with its own tag. And just because an admin was involved somehow doesn't mean they oversaw every step. It was a bad move, and given the article was written primarily by inexperienced editors it went unchallenged. I'm not here pushing some fanboy agenda. I can't even remember my last edit within the realm of anime. And given your constant accusations I can't help but think it's all motivated by WP:JDLI. I just saw a bad redirect while poking around and reverted it. The only plan I have for Saiyan is maybe to develop some of the Indian district articles. PeRshGo (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, once again it was a tag to merge them together. That the decision was to redirect them BOTH to Dragon Ball does not invalidate the consensus at all. It would have had the same participants either way. The move was valid, no matter how much you want to complain, and argue. And if you know nothing about the topic, and couldn't care less, then why would you even be looking at a redirect from last year and poking around in it. Sorry, but someone who isn't pushing a "fanboy" agenda and has no interest in the topic is certainly not going to be inclined to vilify and declare all of the active, experienced editors involved in the discussion, who are all members of the Anime and manga project and actually are well versed in the topic, to have acting wrongly. Unless of course you really have some other motive. Dragon Ball's Saiyan has nothing to do with India, so I don't see what you could possibly plan to "develop". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just read your own links. You posted a tag to merge Super Saiyan with Saiyan, not Saiyan with Dragon Ball. It's as simple as that. There is no debate. By any normal standard that's grounds for a revert. Maybe you guys play things fast and loose in your WP, I don't know. But to me it seemed pretty clear cut. As for the India articles, keep in mind that after the redirect was posted an editor overwrote it in good faith and began posting information about a village named Saiyan in India. The info was pretty bad, but that's what first grabbed my attention. I looked into the edit history, realized that a pretty shady redirect was done so I restored it as best I could, moved it to Saiyan (Dragon Ball) and made, Saiyan (disambiguation) which referenced the various Indian villages. I had hoped to do a bit more research about the villages, perhaps write an article, and see if maybe one of them may have been the reason for naming the Dragon Ball race Saiyan, but I just never got around to it. And I never said I know nothing about DBZ. I've watched a lot of the show, and own a few of the fighting titles, but I'm far from a fanboy. I don't spend a lot of time in the fiction realm in general on Wikipedia. But if I had to name a wiki pet peeve it would be overzealous and premature deletions. Articles as old as this one, and that exist on so many languages shouldn't just disappear without as much as a proper tag. PeRshGo (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite what you say, there was a very clear and explicit consensus to redirect both articles to to Dragon Ball. Your continued arguments that there was no consensus or that the consensus was invalid is nothing more than WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You were very wrong to restore the redirect on both occasions. On the English Wikipedia, we try our best to avoid articles on fiction that are based entirely on primary sources and clearly have no coverage by reliable third-party sources. These type of articles that do exits are often created by fans who aren't aware or don't care about Wikipedia's policies on fiction and notability. It was clear in both of your restorations that you were not going to "get the point", which is why I decided to put the article up for deletion with the intentions of recreating a redirect later rather than edit waring over returning it to a redirect. —Farix (t | c) 02:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's alright I get it. I looked around and realized nearly all of the Dragon Ball related articles got steamrolled in one foul swoop. This just happened to be the one little article I noticed. The dozens of low quality Dragon Ball articles that had popped up over the years were decided to be collectively cleaned out. I understand that Wikiprojects often do this sort of thing. Sometimes you just gotta clean house. I don't necessarily believe in the practice, as it really can't be considered good faith, but I can live with it. Just be more honest about it next time. PeRshGo (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was quite honest and open and over a period of time. So your hints that the redirects, and the cleanup of the DB article series as a whole, was done in bad faith is evident of your own bad faith, as you comment below exemplifies. —Farix (t | c) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's alright I get it. I looked around and realized nearly all of the Dragon Ball related articles got steamrolled in one foul swoop. This just happened to be the one little article I noticed. The dozens of low quality Dragon Ball articles that had popped up over the years were decided to be collectively cleaned out. I understand that Wikiprojects often do this sort of thing. Sometimes you just gotta clean house. I don't necessarily believe in the practice, as it really can't be considered good faith, but I can live with it. Just be more honest about it next time. PeRshGo (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite what you say, there was a very clear and explicit consensus to redirect both articles to to Dragon Ball. Your continued arguments that there was no consensus or that the consensus was invalid is nothing more than WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You were very wrong to restore the redirect on both occasions. On the English Wikipedia, we try our best to avoid articles on fiction that are based entirely on primary sources and clearly have no coverage by reliable third-party sources. These type of articles that do exits are often created by fans who aren't aware or don't care about Wikipedia's policies on fiction and notability. It was clear in both of your restorations that you were not going to "get the point", which is why I decided to put the article up for deletion with the intentions of recreating a redirect later rather than edit waring over returning it to a redirect. —Farix (t | c) 02:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just read your own links. You posted a tag to merge Super Saiyan with Saiyan, not Saiyan with Dragon Ball. It's as simple as that. There is no debate. By any normal standard that's grounds for a revert. Maybe you guys play things fast and loose in your WP, I don't know. But to me it seemed pretty clear cut. As for the India articles, keep in mind that after the redirect was posted an editor overwrote it in good faith and began posting information about a village named Saiyan in India. The info was pretty bad, but that's what first grabbed my attention. I looked into the edit history, realized that a pretty shady redirect was done so I restored it as best I could, moved it to Saiyan (Dragon Ball) and made, Saiyan (disambiguation) which referenced the various Indian villages. I had hoped to do a bit more research about the villages, perhaps write an article, and see if maybe one of them may have been the reason for naming the Dragon Ball race Saiyan, but I just never got around to it. And I never said I know nothing about DBZ. I've watched a lot of the show, and own a few of the fighting titles, but I'm far from a fanboy. I don't spend a lot of time in the fiction realm in general on Wikipedia. But if I had to name a wiki pet peeve it would be overzealous and premature deletions. Articles as old as this one, and that exist on so many languages shouldn't just disappear without as much as a proper tag. PeRshGo (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, once again it was a tag to merge them together. That the decision was to redirect them BOTH to Dragon Ball does not invalidate the consensus at all. It would have had the same participants either way. The move was valid, no matter how much you want to complain, and argue. And if you know nothing about the topic, and couldn't care less, then why would you even be looking at a redirect from last year and poking around in it. Sorry, but someone who isn't pushing a "fanboy" agenda and has no interest in the topic is certainly not going to be inclined to vilify and declare all of the active, experienced editors involved in the discussion, who are all members of the Anime and manga project and actually are well versed in the topic, to have acting wrongly. Unless of course you really have some other motive. Dragon Ball's Saiyan has nothing to do with India, so I don't see what you could possibly plan to "develop". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, that was the tag for Super Sayian to be merged into Saiyan, not Saiyan to be merged into Dragon Ball. You can defend it all you want but the history doesn't lie. A discussion to redirect the whole page to Dragon Ball should have come with its own tag. And just because an admin was involved somehow doesn't mean they oversaw every step. It was a bad move, and given the article was written primarily by inexperienced editors it went unchallenged. I'm not here pushing some fanboy agenda. I can't even remember my last edit within the realm of anime. And given your constant accusations I can't help but think it's all motivated by WP:JDLI. I just saw a bad redirect while poking around and reverted it. The only plan I have for Saiyan is maybe to develop some of the Indian district articles. PeRshGo (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both articles were properly tagged for merger as is clear in the edit histories[7][8] before being redirected. The discussion occurred properly at Super Saiyan re merging the two articles, and the consensus was to redirect BOTH to Dragon Ball. Discussions do not occur in both places, nor is it supposed to. FYI, one of the participants in that discussion was an admin, so I seriously doubt he wouldn't have said something if procedure had not been done properly, but of course it was. You simply disagreed with the result and came later and undid it all, twice, despite being told it was by consensus, which it was. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't follow anything close appropriate procedure so I reverted it. If you can show me a merger tag, or even one comment on Talk: Saiyan (Dragon Ball) that would be something. But you can't show either because they never happened. PeRshGo (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit summary notes it was done per consensus, so take your bad faith, thinly veiled negative claims elsewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You aren't at any point referencing both discussions. Here's the discussion on Saiyan (Dragon Ball)'s talk page, Talk:Saiyan_(Dragon_Ball)#Merge in Super Saiyan here. You'll notice that merging the page with Dragon Ball wasn't agreed to or even mentioned. You just did it, no tag, no anything. PeRshGo (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am referencing both. It was done in an appropriate fashion. Your disagreeing with them and randomly deciding to undo them ages later is your issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note once again that you are referencing the Super Saiyan page, not the Saiyan (Dragon Ball) page. If I went over to Klingon's talk page and argued that we merge Vulcan (Star Trek) with Star Trek you can be certain it would get reverted. Not even a merger tag was put up. It was just done. PeRshGo (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There may be some sources available. Looking through Google Scholar hits for Saiyan [9], most of them seem to be unrelated or trivial mentions, but I noticed what looked to be a review in The Lion and the Unicorn of this book, with Google's snippet of the review saying "For example, her adroit and thoughtful reading of the primary text of Dragon Ball Z exposes the testosterone-driven—and borderline white supremacist—behavior of the Saiyan warriors." I don't think the full text of either the review or the book is available from Google, but if the book actually discusses the Saiyans in detail then it could be a good source. Searching Google Scholar for the alternate spelling "saiyajin" turns up some hits as well [10], but they aren't in English so I can't tell if they are useful. Someone might want to look at those in case any of them are useful sources. Calathan (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now. No evidence of meeting any relevant inclusion guideline. Would gladly change my position if enough evidences are found. --KrebMarkt 06:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Add edit protection to my position. It may warrant an article in any future but certainly any editor recreating it with a biased fan minded mentality will result epic failure with Original Research, Point of View pushing & from fans for fans writing style & contents. --KrebMarkt 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now for me as well. Here's my thing, the article was a submarine resurrection. The project tag and a link in template are missing. Which gives me the impression that the editor brought this article back under the radar in hopes that the page might live. If it wasn't for Sesshomaru finding it and telling me about it and me then reporting it, it might still be up unchanged for untold months if not years. The real world content is there in term of the Toriyama's development of the race, thank to the source books like the Daizenshus and the more recently published books. However, the concept is not embedded into pop culture like Klingon, Vulcan, or Kryptonian due to it's early entry into our lexicon. Plus, we also have to contend with the sad fact that, and I mean no disrespect the editors here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, most editors working on Dragon Ball, if not all foreign pop culture articles, are produced and worked on by fanboys and fangirls who really have no access to the those aforementioned source materials or can even speak or read the language to help make a real dent on such an article as this. And any if all people with any real access and incite on the sources have moved on and are busy with real life. I'd be more incline to wait until more sources for the impact and more translations of the source books appear to attempt another by protocol resurrection. Sarujo (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In regards to not knowing the source language, there could be inter-wiki coordination with the Japanese Wikipedia to identify and transcribe Japanese-language sources so that they can be used to help develop articles. The ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo can be used to initiate such requests. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't restore the WP stuff because I didn't realize it was missing. This wasn't a labor of love for me. I just did it because by any normal standard it would be a bad move. Someone with little to no consensus and no tags that directly mentioned the redirect, redirected a page that exists in several other languages, has countless edits and from looking at the history has already had 2 pages merged into it. It seems Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga takes mergers and redirects as serious as they do Wikipedia:Assume good faith. PeRshGo (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: A lot of what we have is plot summary and in-universe information. Good encyclopedic articles are not made of that material. If secondary sources are found in regards to cultural impact or conception and development, then it could conceivably come back. PeRshGo: I would suggest looking through VIZ Dragon Ball books and guidebooks to see if Toriyama mentions any notes about how he designed Saiyans, what he decided to do, etc. Failing that, go on the ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo and ask Japanese editors if they know any works that talk about Toriyama's development and conception of the Saiyans. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - (Lots of) sources exist.[11] Just imagine all the Japanese language info out there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The listing I saw simply has reviews of video games with "Saiyan" in their name. Saiyan is a common term in the DBZ lingo. However this doesn't prove that an abundance of information about the creation and conception of the Saiyan race or the public reaction to the design and implementation of the Saiyan race exists. Either one or both of these elements are needed to write a standalone article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just noticed someone at Dragon Ball's talk mention that there isn't even a Dragon Ball Z article. I think I better understand the gravity of the situation now. PeRshGo (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you go making any more messes, look at the talk archive. Dragon Ball Z was merged to Dragon Ball by overwhelming consensus and WP:MOSAM because they are *gasp* the same series! That they added an extra name on the anime release does not negate that. That consensus has been consistentlyexpand upheld in nearly annual revisiting of the discussion. Not that I bet you'll care, as you seem determine to just stir up hornet's nests and run around fancrufting the DB articles despite your continued claims that you aren't a "fan". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah It's cool. You actually bothered to mention it on the talk page this time. Good job. And anyways I'll be too busy trying to merge Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation by calling all who oppose the merger trekies and fanboys. PeRshGo (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, it's perfectly valid to consider treating a manga series and an anime series as separate productions, because they are. In some cases it would be appropriate to include them in the same article, for example if both topics were simple, and there was little difference between them and their reception/ In this case, you have a manga series which has spawned multiple notable productions in various media, and varied reception internationally. It is not appropriate that all offshoots be in one article. While all the books in Rowling's series happen within the Harry Potter universe, each has its own article. While Rowling is arguably much more notable, the difference is not that Dragon Ball is not notable, it's merely a matter of scale. - BalthCat (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting note: Interesting point of reference. I guess wasn't completely off on my Wikipedia:I just don't like it accusation. But I'm just calling BS at this point. It really has no purpose. I'm not going to try and fight a whole WikiProject that has decided that the series isn't worth the article space. PeRshGo (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take your bad faith and personal attacks somewhere else if you can not make any more productive contributes to this discussion. AnmaFinotera, I and the others have given policy base reasons why this article should not exists. You have presented nothing but allusions of bad faith. —Farix (t | c) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I started with complete civility but given I was immediately attacked with accusations of bad faith and personal attacks when only trying to describe how this page was improperly redirected I could no longer ignore the blatant bad faith seen throughout the entire subject. A spin off with 9 seasons is considered non-notable. Seriously? Accuse me of whatever you like but when crap like that is being pulled at the same time it seems silly to ignore it. But as I said I'm not going to try and fight a whole WikiProject that has decided that the series isn't worth the article space. Rather than improve the articles you just delete them because you don't care to improve them yourself. Whatever. It's your WP, do whatever you want. But don't play make believe with me. PeRshGo (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Civility is not reverting an editor's undoing of your bad actions and saying "Thanks for your opinion"[12]. You are the one who made it abundantly clear that you didn't care what the consensus was and are arguing just to argue. Dragon Ball Z is not a "spin off", it is simply the English name for the latter half of the manga and its anime adaptation, the former of which was released as just Dragon Ball in Japan. It is not significant different from the first half of the series, it is a continuation of the same story. Nor did anyone say it was "non-notable" rather than it is the same topic already covered in Dragon Ball that does not need a redundant second article. The WikiProject works hard to improve anime/manga articles, which doesn't mean catering to fans who are bound and determined to pretend they are not the same series and who want to have pages upon pages of WP:OR and plot summary. Whether you agree with the project member's consensus that the topic of DB is best served with one article about the series rather than two redundant articles is your own issue. Thanks, at least, for making it very clear that despite your protests above, you really are just another fan wanting to revert the articles back to a fansite-like state instead of an encyclopedic article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've explained that I feel your actions preceding the "merger" were inadequate on many levels. It seems that defending weak actions are appropriate, and defending a weak article is rampant fandom. PeRshGo (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Civility is not reverting an editor's undoing of your bad actions and saying "Thanks for your opinion"[12]. You are the one who made it abundantly clear that you didn't care what the consensus was and are arguing just to argue. Dragon Ball Z is not a "spin off", it is simply the English name for the latter half of the manga and its anime adaptation, the former of which was released as just Dragon Ball in Japan. It is not significant different from the first half of the series, it is a continuation of the same story. Nor did anyone say it was "non-notable" rather than it is the same topic already covered in Dragon Ball that does not need a redundant second article. The WikiProject works hard to improve anime/manga articles, which doesn't mean catering to fans who are bound and determined to pretend they are not the same series and who want to have pages upon pages of WP:OR and plot summary. Whether you agree with the project member's consensus that the topic of DB is best served with one article about the series rather than two redundant articles is your own issue. Thanks, at least, for making it very clear that despite your protests above, you really are just another fan wanting to revert the articles back to a fansite-like state instead of an encyclopedic article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I started with complete civility but given I was immediately attacked with accusations of bad faith and personal attacks when only trying to describe how this page was improperly redirected I could no longer ignore the blatant bad faith seen throughout the entire subject. A spin off with 9 seasons is considered non-notable. Seriously? Accuse me of whatever you like but when crap like that is being pulled at the same time it seems silly to ignore it. But as I said I'm not going to try and fight a whole WikiProject that has decided that the series isn't worth the article space. Rather than improve the articles you just delete them because you don't care to improve them yourself. Whatever. It's your WP, do whatever you want. But don't play make believe with me. PeRshGo (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take your bad faith and personal attacks somewhere else if you can not make any more productive contributes to this discussion. AnmaFinotera, I and the others have given policy base reasons why this article should not exists. You have presented nothing but allusions of bad faith. —Farix (t | c) 03:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, things are getting even shadier now with posts being deleted. Whatever, do what you want with it. I don't want any part of this mess. PeRshGo (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your post was a violation of policy, hence the inappropriate content being removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of valid information to fill the article, which wouldn't fit well anywhere else. Notable races in comic books, and other fictional series have their own races. It helps to understand the series better. It is the race that the main character is, as well as a fair number of other characters that appear throughout the series, and there even an entire movie about them(something, Father of Goku, it was called). Dream Focus 06:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between this and other races. Other fictional races have well-sourced information about creation and conception and reaction from critics. This one doesn't. We cannot have a separate page without what I mentioned. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and suggest indefinite full protection as this is an ongoing revert attempts and content dispute with multiple editors, including both IP and non-IP and will likely only continue if it is not protected from such reversions in the future. The attempts at reverting have never shown any attempt to follow policies or guidelines like WP:NOTPLOT, WP:GNG, WP:OR and others as far as I can tell.陣内Jinnai 06:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any problems with that happening yet. Where in the history [13] do you see any problems with any edit warring? Hopefully all of those editing with IP addresses will take the time to comment here. The opinions of those editing the article, and who actually watch the series, I think should always be sought after. Dream Focus 11:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge and Redirect to Dragonball Z - fails WP:PLOT - excessive coverage of fictional content is to be discouraged. There's no real-world notability of this, and no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claritas § 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean Dragon Ball?陣内Jinnai 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They probably assumed like most people would that a Dragon Ball Z article exists. PeRshGo (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A DBZ article actually existed, but it was merged into the Dragon Ball article a few years ago and I helped organized the cleanup of these articles at that time, along with some help from other users. You can find the information about DBZ here now that it was merged to that article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They probably assumed like most people would that a Dragon Ball Z article exists. PeRshGo (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean Dragon Ball?陣内Jinnai 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Redirect to Dragon Ball - fails WP:NOT#PLOT and resembles a fansite without any reliable sources to cover this article. The Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT and Dragon Ball anime articles have all been redirected to the Dragon Ball article, as well as the Super Saiyan article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Create new Dragon Ball fork: I don't think it is appropriate to merge all Dragon Ball articles into one. While it is not sensible to say it compares to Star Trek, it is unquestionably a notable franchise. (I for one have never seen a full episode of Dragon Ball and I know the word Saiyan and Super Saiyan. I don't really know what they mean, but it's a part of my 'pop culture exposure') There are four animated series, multiple animated movies, at least one live action film, video games, as well as manga series' and other productions. If the notable details of all these works are included in one article, it would become large and unwieldy, there must be forks. For comparison, I looked into Mudblood and Zord. The former redirects to Harry Potter universe and the latter exists. I think the former is the sensible solution here. Create an article such as Dragon Ball setting or Dragon Ball universe and use this as the merge destination for setting topics. - BalthCat (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was arguing for this article primarly because I thought it was a shady redirect on an old and internationally recognized article, but when I realized that even Dragon Ball Z didn't have it's own article the problem seemed to be a bit larger. I think BalthCat brings up a good point. PeRshGo (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Which is Wikipedia refuses to give in to the fan minded editors. You want a separate article for a fictional element, universe, character, etc... Earn it. Prove that the spin-out is warranted with enough evidences of notability and not weak arguments like article size, i like it, its deserve it and the like. I am tired of false promises and short minded editors who think that their preferred fictional series is better covered by Wikipedia with more articles which would only result to ridicule and brand the set of article as Fandom Tantrum Premium Product --KrebMarkt 06:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Give me a break. Earn it? Article size is specifically mentioned at the top of the edit box when you edit a large article. Is this not, and has this not always been, because beyond a certain size, forking is encouraged? Has something changed? Otherwise, what would be the point of creating forks at all? They contain a certain amount of redundant information, which requires redundant sourcing. While PeRshGo could possibly be fan-minded, I am not; I hated Dragon Ball Z, and I don't appreciate you attacking him in his response to me. - BalthCat (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:LENGTH argument isn't applicable in the Dragon Ball case as it's just 28 KBs of readable proses. If you like some reading here the last DBZ split discussion. Dragon Ball is very symbolic on how much we can screw up with excessive spin-out with a fictional franchise. It went as far as creating one article per Dragon Ball related music singles and albums released (around 40 articles), an article for Dragon Ball video games music composer, an article for Dragon Ball Kai anime series opening theme performer. --KrebMarkt 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't "combining" everything to the Dragon Ball article overkill? And I would note that Dragon Ball is only so short because the mergers done were mergers in name only. Little to no information is ever copied into the article despite some of it being well sourced. PeRshGo (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All appropriate and reliably sourced content was merged. Please stop the incorrect accusations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't "combining" everything to the Dragon Ball article overkill? And I would note that Dragon Ball is only so short because the mergers done were mergers in name only. Little to no information is ever copied into the article despite some of it being well sourced. PeRshGo (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:LENGTH argument isn't applicable in the Dragon Ball case as it's just 28 KBs of readable proses. If you like some reading here the last DBZ split discussion. Dragon Ball is very symbolic on how much we can screw up with excessive spin-out with a fictional franchise. It went as far as creating one article per Dragon Ball related music singles and albums released (around 40 articles), an article for Dragon Ball video games music composer, an article for Dragon Ball Kai anime series opening theme performer. --KrebMarkt 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Give me a break. Earn it? Article size is specifically mentioned at the top of the edit box when you edit a large article. Is this not, and has this not always been, because beyond a certain size, forking is encouraged? Has something changed? Otherwise, what would be the point of creating forks at all? They contain a certain amount of redundant information, which requires redundant sourcing. While PeRshGo could possibly be fan-minded, I am not; I hated Dragon Ball Z, and I don't appreciate you attacking him in his response to me. - BalthCat (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Which is Wikipedia refuses to give in to the fan minded editors. You want a separate article for a fictional element, universe, character, etc... Earn it. Prove that the spin-out is warranted with enough evidences of notability and not weak arguments like article size, i like it, its deserve it and the like. I am tired of false promises and short minded editors who think that their preferred fictional series is better covered by Wikipedia with more articles which would only result to ridicule and brand the set of article as Fandom Tantrum Premium Product --KrebMarkt 06:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was arguing for this article primarly because I thought it was a shady redirect on an old and internationally recognized article, but when I realized that even Dragon Ball Z didn't have it's own article the problem seemed to be a bit larger. I think BalthCat brings up a good point. PeRshGo (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once all of the repetitive information was removed, there wasn't much left other than critical reception and information about the series broadcast. It was because there was so much repetitive information and not enough unique information that the two articles were merged. In fact, that is why most manga articles with anime adaptations, or visa versa, are always combined. But this is entirely off-topic and has nothing to do with this article, Saiyan (Dragon Ball). So all of these accusations that something "nefarious" happened with the Dragon Ball articles in order to keep this article are just a red herring. —Farix (t | c) 16:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect not significant coverage for an article... Arskwad (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong redirect per nom, Sjones23, et al. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: The AfD has sparked a new discussion about splitting DBZ Talk:Dragon_Ball#Bring_Back_The_DBZ_Article. All interested editors are invited to join in (again). --KrebMarkt 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Discussion" started by another User:PWeeHurman sock and should just be removed per usual procedures for dealing with banned people. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The case is still ongoing and was started by YOU. I have to say WikiProject Anime and manga has to be the most shady WikiProject on this website. And this is from someone who does most his edits in the realm of secret societies. PeRshGo (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, look at his history and the 30 variants of that name he's used - nothing shady about it, pretty much a guarantee. Just doing CU to get any sleepers since he, like most sockers, like to make more than one at once. Have asked an admin to deal with blocking him. And my noting, and properly reporting, him as a known sockpuppetter has nothing to do with anything. Your continued attacks on the Anime and Manga project and claims of "shady" activity are grossly uncivil and beyond bad faith. You disparaging anyone who has pointed out repeatedly that you were wrong in your claims is also uncivil and disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it high time that an WP:ANI report be filed on PeRshGo as he or she is clearly doing nothing more than being disruptive this AfD by repeatedly attack other editors for unrelated issues instead of discussing the article up for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I will post it up at WP:ANI as soon as possible. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This might be more convincing to bystanders if you all maintained the appearance of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Since you haven't, it really looks like you are on a crusade. - BalthCat (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the entire ANI for the issues, and the fact is that PeRshGo himself has stated he went to far in his accusations at this AfD and his continued personal attacks against specific editors and an entire WikiProject. He also was sternly warned in the AfD (and encouraged to come strike his comments - though he has declined to do so). So now that he has proclaimed that he is dropping it, are you picking up his banner to make the same inappropriate remarks? There is no "crusade" going on, just several editors validly annoyed as PeRshGo's actions and his having stirred up controversy and made bad-faith accusations without cause. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I observed immediate hostility towards him, and I am pointing out what that hostility seems to imply. I have no loyalties to him, or to Dragon Ball, I do however, have a peeve with people invoking CIVIL and AGF in the same breath as they break them. - BalthCat (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the entire ANI for the issues, and the fact is that PeRshGo himself has stated he went to far in his accusations at this AfD and his continued personal attacks against specific editors and an entire WikiProject. He also was sternly warned in the AfD (and encouraged to come strike his comments - though he has declined to do so). So now that he has proclaimed that he is dropping it, are you picking up his banner to make the same inappropriate remarks? There is no "crusade" going on, just several editors validly annoyed as PeRshGo's actions and his having stirred up controversy and made bad-faith accusations without cause. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it high time that an WP:ANI report be filed on PeRshGo as he or she is clearly doing nothing more than being disruptive this AfD by repeatedly attack other editors for unrelated issues instead of discussing the article up for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, look at his history and the 30 variants of that name he's used - nothing shady about it, pretty much a guarantee. Just doing CU to get any sleepers since he, like most sockers, like to make more than one at once. Have asked an admin to deal with blocking him. And my noting, and properly reporting, him as a known sockpuppetter has nothing to do with anything. Your continued attacks on the Anime and Manga project and claims of "shady" activity are grossly uncivil and beyond bad faith. You disparaging anyone who has pointed out repeatedly that you were wrong in your claims is also uncivil and disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The case is still ongoing and was started by YOU. I have to say WikiProject Anime and manga has to be the most shady WikiProject on this website. And this is from someone who does most his edits in the realm of secret societies. PeRshGo (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above, No real world notability to be found here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now for lack of established notability and for being mostly unsourced plot. If parts can be merged elsewhere (i.e. by slightly restructuring the List of characters), go ahead. – sgeureka t•c 07:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have not read the entire logorrhea that comprises this AfD. Nor am I interested in what compromises or deals may've been worked out under duress by some editors - they have no authority to bind the rest of us. Nor, for that matter, am I interested in what issues some editors may have with the content, because this is a discussion of notability.
- What I do know is that the Dragon Ball franchise is one of the most popular ever (lamentably) in both Japan and America and that Saiyans are one of the most important & common plot elements, that hits in both [ http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=dragon+ball+saiyan Google Books] or my CSE are so absurdly numerous that it's hard to see hits like The supervillain book: the evil side of comics and Hollywood buried in all the official DB material and all the other stuff. I don't need to go through all the LexisNexis hits to know that this is an obvious keep. --Gwern (contribs) 19:53 22 June 2010 (GMT)
- Gwern, you do have to dig through LexisNexis. See, while a fictional universe is a notable topic, terms within the fictional universe do not get their own articles unless the terms themselves are discussed in detail in secondary sources. If you want this article saved, go through the books and add the secondary material. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be why I suggested Dragon Ball universe. - BalthCat (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gwern, you do have to dig through LexisNexis. See, while a fictional universe is a notable topic, terms within the fictional universe do not get their own articles unless the terms themselves are discussed in detail in secondary sources. If you want this article saved, go through the books and add the secondary material. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultra Strong Delete Destroy this article. It violates the almighty WP:N, as well as numerous other policies and guidelines that've been widely accepted as consensus by roughly three dozen people. ALSO use this AfD as a precedent to delete every fiction-related article that isn't directly about the series itself or a character or episode list of accepted legitimacy. This includes all "_____ universe" articles that explain a setting and any topics regarding fictional terms, races, abilities and etc. Kill. It. All. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia for real world subjects and we, as Wikipedians, have a responsibility to purge this garbage from all publicly available online venues for the benefit of our readers. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- am I correct in assuming this opinion is meant as satire? If not, I'll try to explain why I thought it was. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect per above. This article is a terrible in-universe fancruft extravaganza. SnottyWong gossip 04:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect Per above and per lack of independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To the editors who want this kept: Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cranbury School - Back when "Cranbury School" was on AFD, I didn't just argue on why to keep it. I went out and tried to build the article and source as much as I could. Alansohn and I not only built up the article - we found proof that it needed to be kept. Please learn from this example. If "Saiyan" is salvable, then go on LexisNexis, go on Questia, read the Dragon Ball guidebooks, build up the article, and prove it. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is though some editors are lazy and/or have limited time on wikipedia (Work, College, ect..) and cant be here to find the sources in depth. As for the guide books, most likely fans of the series would have them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fans of the series who want the article kept can consult their guidebooks. If someone doesn't have a book but knows a Wikipedian who has a book, they can ask the Wikipedian to look up the book to see if there is content about the development of Saiyans. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep in mind, though, that if the only coverage is in fanbooks, and there is no actual third-party coverage, it still is not notable. It must have third-party coverage as a subject, not just mentioning in the context of the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For reception information or additional creation information in third party sources, things in LexisNexis, EBSCOHost, etc. would help with that. Also he could contact the Chatsubo and ask for the Japanese to look for reviews that discuss reactions to the way the Saiyan race was established in the Dragon Ball universe.
- Even if he only finds primary source creation info from guidebooks, it means that the "Saiyan" section of a "Dragon Ball universe" would be of a decent size with lots of interesting information.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Dragon Ball universe article would also only be appropriate with third-party coverage. "interesting information" that is only from primary sources is not a basis for creating any article. If the only coverage of the race is in the guidebooks, those interested in learning such information should simply buy the guideline. Wikipedia does not exist purely to mirror a primary source, after all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A person trying to create an article about the Dragon Ball universe as a whole will certainly find secondary sources that describe reception to the way the universe was constructed, securing the article's existence as a standalone article. However not every element individually documented in such an article will necessarily have secondary information. Some portions of the article may use entirely primary source information. In order for the "Saiyan" concept to get its own standalone article, there have to be secondary sources that discuss specifically the race as a concept. Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not there to mirror a particular primary source 100%. However we can take what is deemed encyclopedic or worthy of including from that primary source, and combine it with the encyclopedic material from other primary sources to build significant sections of articles about fictional universes. For instance with the Death Note articles How to Read 13 (along with the Malaysian The Star newspaper articles and some other supplementary materials) was incredibly helpful in building up sections of Death Note articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Dragon Ball universe article would also only be appropriate with third-party coverage. "interesting information" that is only from primary sources is not a basis for creating any article. If the only coverage of the race is in the guidebooks, those interested in learning such information should simply buy the guideline. Wikipedia does not exist purely to mirror a primary source, after all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is though some editors are lazy and/or have limited time on wikipedia (Work, College, ect..) and cant be here to find the sources in depth. As for the guide books, most likely fans of the series would have them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2010 (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.
- 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 List of minor Usagi Yojimbo characters. Brandon (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mogura ninja
- Mogura ninja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mole ninjas in a comic book which have not received enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:N. Claritas § 16:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I moled it over, and the nom is correct. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of minor Usagi Yojimbo characters. Edward321 (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2010 (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.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of gangs in the Saints Row series
- List of gangs in the Saints Row series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Gave a shot at improving this, this subject appears to only be covered in instruction manuals and WP:GAMEGUIDEs. No third party sources, no reception or impact. Fails WP:N and WP:V. For consensus on similar articles, look at:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series (2nd nomination) (deleted 2010-06)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto 3 era (deleted 2010-06)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in The Warriors (deleted 2010-06)
... which all show a community consensus that these kinds of video WP:GAMEGUIDE articles are inappropriate unless there are sources about the real-world impact of these fictional gangs. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. No objection to transwiki'ing it somewhere where it might fit better, but it doesn't belong here. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Claritas § 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We're not a game guide. Real-world lists like this should also be deleted, they're full of shit. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow/Speedy Delete - The very definition of WP:GAMECRUFT, and has no notability. There's a snowball's chance anything like this could survive. --Teancum (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsuitable on multiple levels, particularly WP:OR and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2010 (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.
- 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. That seems to be the rough consensus so far. Further discussions about merging can be discussed on the talk pages. –MuZemike 00:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oobleck
- Oobleck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dr. Seuss' use of the term is already covered in Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The rest of the article is essentially a how-to guide, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook or instruction manual. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The only notable definition is already found at that article. Tavix | Talk 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (see below)
Weak keep. We need some sort of article covering the substances known variously as Oobleck and Glurch (and goop and gloop) which are regularly used as demonstration material in all levels of education (from primary to post-secondary). There are lots of .edu sources available, which should provide the necessary references. However, the substances themselves should be the primary topic matter of this article, with only an explanatory note about the Seussian inspiration (linking to the Bartholomew article for details). It probably needs a more encompassing (and accurate) title, too, to properly cover these various substances; I'm not sure what that title would be, and I don't have the expertise to do the overhaul required. I'll leave a note at the chemistry project, to see if anyone there has time/ideas for input. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The discussion of the properties of the substance can be deal with at Non-Newtonian_fluid#Common_examples. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That might work, if the content at Non-Newtonian_fluid can be improved to encompass oobleck and glurch. Then add a hatnote at Bartholomew and the Oobleck pointing readers to the other link, if they're looking for the substance itself. I'll add merge tags, to get more input. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I think there's enough coverage of the real-life substance (a common science lesson in schools) to warrant a stub. See this book in particular, along with its appearance as a class project in numerous others. ThemFromSpace 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bartholomew_and_the_Oobleck. --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Our coverage of popular culture issues is one point which marks Wikipedia out from more traditional encyclopedias, so I don't think we should destroy that bit of competitive advantage. Why shouldn't some kid type
Oobleck
and get an article about this fictitious substance? An article that tells him or her that it is fictitious, that it doesn't exist outside of books, but telling them the properties it's supposed to have according to the books... (hell, I can think of a couple of mainsteam chemistry articles we do that for: 1 2!) Physchim62 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The substance is not fictitious. You can make it in your kitchen (you should! it's fun and educational. 2-parts corn starch and 1-part water). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Oobleck is not fictional! The name is given to a simple but effective science experiment especially suited for children. It is part of the category Category:Chemistry classroom experiments where you will find experiments with other silly names like the barking dog reaction. Do you really want kids redirected to Non-Newtonian_fluid ? The real substance should preside over its fictional origins though V8rik (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Everybody's talking past each other. This is a real substance, that's really made in thousands upon thousands of middle school, high school and university chemistry labs every year. Obviously notable. Its fictional namesake is probably notable as well, and obviously deserves discussion in this article, but this is the real thing.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as the above comments note, the term is used for a real substance. It is taken from the Dr. Seuss book but is not the same thing as the original reference; the article should be separate.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the four above posts. Not a 'how-to' - that's a definition. (I grew up without hearing of Dr Seuss and wish that I had encountered those books back then.) Peridon (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first nominated this article for AFD, it was a how-to. You might want to check the archives. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the two sections into Bartholomew and the Oobleck and Non-Newtonian fluid respectively (although I think the relevant information is already present there), and replace by a disambiguation page, as in the box. The two different uses of the word "Oobleck" have nothing in common to justify this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oobleck can refer to:
|
- I see someone else has boldly done a merge. Consequently, I've boldly implemented this suggestion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Radagast. (Disambiguation pages are generally not used for just 2 items, but it makes sense in this case as neither target is an exact match).
I (or anyone) should try to find some reliable sources for Glurch (currently a redirect to oobleck) which is a separate substance. It should also be merged to Non-Newtonian fluid.(Done) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Radagast. (Disambiguation pages are generally not used for just 2 items, but it makes sense in this case as neither target is an exact match).
- 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.
- 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patusan
- Patusan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- DELETE. This is a non-notable fictional location. There is a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage of this subject by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Several pages of P. analysis in Conrad and Gender, Rodopi [14] Also in Real: The Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature, Volume 3, Walter de Gruyter [15], The novel and the globalization of culture, Oxford [16], Conrad and impressionism, Cambridge [17], Textual Practice, Issue 2 Routledge[18], and more. Novickas (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2010 (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.
- 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional New Zealanders
- List of fictional New Zealanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List which fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Considering the amount of fiction in all forms which has been published/broadcast in New Zealand, this list would be impractical and unmaintainable if expanded. In its current state it is simply unrepresentative. Claritas § 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pretty much per nom (WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR all apply here). It's important to note that because each of these characters are from a different fictional universe, the designation of being a New Zealander is pretty arbitrary cross categorization. ThemFromSpace 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see any special problem with the list. It seems to be limited to notable characters from notable works. More could be added to balance out the superheroes and science fiction characters. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SALAT → "List of people" section. These fictional people are not notable for being from New Zealand so the list is completely arbitrary. It is also way to broad in scope. If every fictional New Zealander was in the list, it would become an unuseful index but in its uncompleted state, its just a random group. Its a non-notable intersection and therefore, should be deleted. Tavix | Talk 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Sorry for the slippery slope, but if we start with NZ, we could do similar lists for, say the US, UK, Japan, fictional places... Think of the scope of those articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and those who don't like it, won't be likely to ever find it anyway. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Space isn't the issue, it's the "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" of WP:NOTDIR that is. Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. That the list is short now has nothing to do with it. If you think of a similar article from a nation that produces a lot more fiction like the US, you'd put together a gigantic list of completely unrelated charactesr, from Huckleberry Finn to Philip J. Fry to Cheerleader #78 in Bring It On Again to Sarah McDougal from Love Hina. The list of fictional cats you mention elsewhere in this discussion has the exact same issue, the inclusion criterion is too vast and too vague and does not follow WP:SALAT.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. : Being the subject of other encyclopedias is definitely not our criteria for keeping articles, let alone lists (which have different criteria). See WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopiatalk 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a category for fictional New Zealanders would work better. dramatic (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories aren't as easy to read, and don't allow for as much information to be presented. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't honestly see how it is harder to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_New_Zealand_people than it is to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_New_Zealanders . And surely the place for information to be presented is in the characters' articles themselves, not in a list? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Does not fail WP:SALAT: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). - This is exactly the case: the list is specific in scope, being about (1)fictional characters and (2)New Zealanders only. Also: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles , and that is the case here. Also, An exception is nationality/ethnicity, and we're doing exactly that. Does not fail WP:IINFO, not falling under any of the categories specified; the list is well discriminate in scope and in content, containing almost only notable entries (notable enough to have a WP article or being otherwise well covered in WP). Does not fail WP:NOTDIR, since it is not a Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, but a list of characters tightly linked by nationality (see also above). The "impractical" argument does not hold, since we use to split in sub-lists any list that becomes too large, see List of people for an example of such hierarchical listing. Arguments about the current state of the list do not hold, since per deletion policy we don't delete on the basis of article quality. About the "slippery slope" argument, we already have such lists for other countries. About the "a category is better" argument, remember that categories and list are by no means mutually exclusive. The list is not a random intersection: it is a good starting point to investigate the role of New Zealand in fiction. --Cyclopiatalk 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Reyk YO! 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in favour of a category as per Dramatic. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More information there as a list article, and easier to navigate, than it would as a category. If you search for "List of Fictional" in the Wikipedia search bar, you will find 17,721 results. Everything from list of fictional cats to List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list (once subdivided by headings) can only be subdivided in one way. But an article can fit into multiple subcategories as necessary - e.g. a character in a book which is made into a film. Which makes the categories better for navigation. But that is a long way off since the list only contains one valid item at present. (Remember how list entries need to be sourced?) dramatic (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating. Yes it will be a long list, but it will be finite, as it will be in proportion to our coverage of NZ fiction. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion and as such should not be solely cited in a rationale. If that were the case, one could just cite WP:NOTPAPER for anything and use it for their keep !vote. Tavix | Talk 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DGG comment addresses the rationale of who thinks that such a list would be "too large" or leading to a "slippery slope": we have no space problems, so those rationales make no sense. --Cyclopiatalk 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it goes the other way too. Just because a list would be massive is no reason to keep an article just as thinking having a list that is "too large" is not a reason to delete. Tavix | Talk 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not--I agree the size of a list is irrelevant. (For that matter, hat a list has too few items is sometimes given as a reason for rejection, which is also irrelevant if its more than 2 or 3. Lists of finite size are objected to as finite, those of indefinite but large size as infinite. --none of this is relevant in accepting or rejecting). DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just hope no one creates List of articles that User:DGG has !voted to keep... :P (joking) SnottyWong squeal 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only to be dwarfed by List of articles that User:Dream Focus has !voted to keep..... Claritas § 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, don't worry. Both would vanish in front of List of lists that User:Claritas and User:Gavin Collins have !voted to delete.
--Cyclopiatalk 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I don't really like most lists very much. Claritas § 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed that. Which is sad, given that many users could find them good navigational helps. But oh, too bad, Claritas didn't like it... --Cyclopiatalk 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a justification for !voting delete. I dislike most lists because most lists should be deleted from my point of view - they are indiscriminate and violate WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, etc. Having said that, there are plenty of useful lists in Wikipedia, such as List of US Presidents etc.Claritas § 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we're here chatting: Now, if tomorrow this list is deleted, and understanding that lists are navigational aids for our readers more than anything else, what has WP gained? What has our readership gained? This is something that baffles me. When we delete original research, completely non-notable entries etc. we help by not giving credibility to stuff which has no encyclopedic credibility. But in this case, of a list of notable entries? What users do you feel will be served by doing that? Articles are not kept on the basis of being useful, but lists, being navigational aids, are meant to be useful. So, what is the usefulness, the help, the service in doing that? I really can't get it. --Cyclopiatalk 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be got rid of precisely because it doesn't do anything useful which a category wouldn't. It's a waste of editor's time to concentrate on improving something with no utility. Claritas § 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no. Our guidelines disagree in full with this point of view. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive : Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. - Also, all else being equal, you shouldn't decide how other editors decide to concentrate their efforts. This is a volunteer project. --Cyclopiatalk 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest two situations in which this list would be useful to the average reader of Wikipedia ? I can't think of any, either in this current state, or in any state. Claritas § 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, if you want to know something about the treatment of New Zealanders in fiction, the list is an excellent starting point. Better than a category, because it gives some quick context to the entries, and as such one can quickly focus on something he/she's more interested in than others. Also, the fact that you "can't think of any" does not mean at all that such situations do not exist. It only shows lack of imagination. --Cyclopiatalk 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a great starting point. At the moment, it is twenty or so indiscriminate entries. It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction.... Claritas § 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a great starting point.: Better than no starting point, for sure.
- It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. : Are there 2000 notable NZ fictional characters? If so, good, but then it is not indiscriminate. If not, it won't grow. It is all matter of proper maintenance.
- Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction: Provided they are notable (which I doubt being the case for most of these characters, but can be for a reasonable minority), where is the problem? --Cyclopiatalk 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that being NZ isn't a particularly notable feature for these characters. We might as well create List of fictional characters who wear top hats. WP:IINFO is the policy here. Claritas § 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:SALAT: Nationality is explicitly indicated as a proper categorization. --Cyclopiatalk 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Real nationality and fictional nationality are very different kettles of fish. The fictional nationality is attached to a fictional New Zealand, and as the characters don't share the same fictional New Zealands, they also don't share the same fictional nationalities. Claritas § 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clutching at straws at its best, isn't it?
--Cyclopiatalk 12:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clutching at straws at its best, isn't it?
- Real nationality and fictional nationality are very different kettles of fish. The fictional nationality is attached to a fictional New Zealand, and as the characters don't share the same fictional New Zealands, they also don't share the same fictional nationalities. Claritas § 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:SALAT: Nationality is explicitly indicated as a proper categorization. --Cyclopiatalk 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that being NZ isn't a particularly notable feature for these characters. We might as well create List of fictional characters who wear top hats. WP:IINFO is the policy here. Claritas § 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a great starting point. At the moment, it is twenty or so indiscriminate entries. It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction.... Claritas § 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, if you want to know something about the treatment of New Zealanders in fiction, the list is an excellent starting point. Better than a category, because it gives some quick context to the entries, and as such one can quickly focus on something he/she's more interested in than others. Also, the fact that you "can't think of any" does not mean at all that such situations do not exist. It only shows lack of imagination. --Cyclopiatalk 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest two situations in which this list would be useful to the average reader of Wikipedia ? I can't think of any, either in this current state, or in any state. Claritas § 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no. Our guidelines disagree in full with this point of view. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive : Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. - Also, all else being equal, you shouldn't decide how other editors decide to concentrate their efforts. This is a volunteer project. --Cyclopiatalk 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a justification for !voting delete. I dislike most lists because most lists should be deleted from my point of view - they are indiscriminate and violate WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, etc. Having said that, there are plenty of useful lists in Wikipedia, such as List of US Presidents etc.Claritas § 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed that. Which is sad, given that many users could find them good navigational helps. But oh, too bad, Claritas didn't like it... --Cyclopiatalk 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I don't really like most lists very much. Claritas § 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, don't worry. Both would vanish in front of List of lists that User:Claritas and User:Gavin Collins have !voted to delete.
- Only to be dwarfed by List of articles that User:Dream Focus has !voted to keep..... Claritas § 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just hope no one creates List of articles that User:DGG has !voted to keep... :P (joking) SnottyWong squeal 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not--I agree the size of a list is irrelevant. (For that matter, hat a list has too few items is sometimes given as a reason for rejection, which is also irrelevant if its more than 2 or 3. Lists of finite size are objected to as finite, those of indefinite but large size as infinite. --none of this is relevant in accepting or rejecting). DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That characters from NZ appear in fiction is made-up? DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are missing the point, DGG. Characters from NZ appear in sources everywhere, except in a list. If there are no reliable, third-party sources for the list itself, then Wikipedia does not have a rationale for its inclusion. If there is no such list in the real world, then there should not be one in Wikipedia either. This article would make an interesting appendices to a book or paper on NZ characters, but then Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And you are missing the point of 1)The purpose of lists, that is that of being a navigational help to readers, not a topic 2)WP:MADEUP which exists to prevent articles to pop about non-notable stuff that has been done one day 3)WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. Gavin, you are really better reading policies and guidelines before appealing to them. --Cyclopiatalk 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lists can have any number of purposes that are useful to editors, but that is not a valid rationale for their inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT#OR says that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and if this list has not been published anywhere else, then if it is an entirely novel and original list topic that does not exist in the real world, it has no place here. What is needed is some verifiable source to show that the list itself (not just its content) is not original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are now deliberately ignoring what WP:OR says, that I quoted above. And WP:ITSUSEFUL says explicitly: An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.". --Cyclopiatalk 10:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not ignoring you, in fairness. I have nothing to say about the content of list; rather it is the existence of the list topic itself that is being challenged. It if has not been published or defined as a list topic in the real world, then Wikipedia should not have a seperate standalone list article about it. Usefulness or naviation does enter into it - good or bad, that is your opinion, but it is not supported by any source. What is missing is an external source to show that this list does not fail WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list does not fail OR. What I quoted above makes it extremly clear. The way we structure content has nothing to do with OR. Please read the above. I do not care if you ignore me, I care if you ignore the policies meaning. --Cyclopiatalk 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you admit that it fails WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Absolutely not. It doesn't fail WP:NOT#OR. It does not fail any original research policy, because structuring content is not OR, and if you actually read the policies you would hopefully understand that. Please tell me which part of WP:OR, WP:NOT#OR the list "fails". I repeat here what I quoted above, and this time please read it and comment on it, do not ignore it: WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. --Cyclopiatalk 10:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The topic of fictional New Zealanders has pedigree and merit. Note for example one of the earlier icons of a fictional New Zealander: Lord Macaulay's visitor to a future ruined London: Ascari, Maurizio; Corrado, Adriana, eds. (2006). Sites of exchange: European crossroads and faultlines. Internationale Forschungen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 103. Rodopi. p. 135 of 296. ISBN 9789042020153. Retrieved 2010-06-19.
[...] one of [Thomas Macaulay's] visions of the future ruin of London, from 1840, endured as a rhetorical commonplace for the rest of the nineteenth century, being given huge additional currency by Gustave Doré's famous illustration, 'The New Zealander', in London, a Pilgrimage in 1872.[...] Macaulay's identification of the new Zealander as a symbolic tourist who will represent a new world when power shall have passed from the old one, [...] centres on the Thames.
And fiction by New Zealanders too has contributed to archetypal images of fictional New Zealanders: recall the importance in New Zealand literature of the "Man Alone": Sturm, Terry, ed. (1998) [1991]. The Oxford New Zealand History of New Zealand Literature in English (2 ed.). Auckland: Oxford University Press. p. 157 of 890. ISBN 0 19 558385 X.Chapman commented that for the writers up to 1950 their 'way of examining the society they depict' was primarily through 'the individual isolated in every sense, who may or may not explode into violent gestures under the distorting weight of a pattern he does not understand'. [...] Although John Mulgan's novel gave this Man Alone pattern its name, it had appeared earlier in the novels of Lee and Hyde, and even its later appearances may not have been influenced by Mulgan, for his novel was not widely available in New Zealand until reprinted in 1949.
But even in the modern period too, non-New Zealanders have expanded or revived the image of fictional New Zealanders as survivors and representatives of a post-apocalytic future. Thus "the Sealand woman" plays a significant role in the closing sequences of John Wyndham's The Chrysalids. (Compare Charles Sheffield's fictional universe of Cold as Ice and The Ganymede Club where a devastated Earth retains southern New Zealand as its last major populated region.) Wikipedia has the ability to build up lists of such characters and tropes. -- If the list eventually grows too large we can subdivide it thematically and chronologically as desired. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This is not a useful list in any way, easily achieved by appropriate categorisation. This kind of pointless article is a time sink which diverts editors from actually improving the project. As such, it is actually damaging the project. Verbal chat 15:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Categories are not ideal replacements for lists, as they may contain articles which are not members of the list. WP:IINFO has nothing against this list. WP:SALAT's applicability is also questionable; this list is only one facet off from List of New Zealand politicians (politician -> fictional person). Arguing WP:SALAT in this case suggests that politicians are inherently more important than fictional characters, which is questionable in the long run of culture. WP:NOTDIR is the best policy against this list, but the existence of other similarly precise lists suggests that unless you are prepared to argue that fictional characters (who merit their own articles) are not culturally significant, it still does not stand up. - BalthCat (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "tto long potentially" is not, per se, sufficient as a reason for deletion. And, as has been mentioned above, a category would eliminate what would otherwise be proper in this list, and well-known enough for such a list, even is not "notable" enough for a separate artcle on WP (or more likely result in too many very short articles). All things considered - keep. Collect (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as overly broad and thus indiscriminate. Fails WP:IINFO in terms of lists (see WP:SALAT). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If the list gets too large, it can be subdivided into lists for characters from films, books, etc. --PinkBull 01:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The open-ended nature of the subject (I'd wager that practically all local NZ literature features such characters) makes this unworkable, along with the still largely-unanswered problem that being from NZ does not unite these subjects in any way but rather simply collects them in as arbitrary a manner as a list of fictional characters by eye colour. Addressing the keeps:
- Pedant17's is interesting, but it rather speaks of the fictional portrayal of New Zealanders. This is a very different thing from an open-ended list of characters who may (and probably mostly don't) reflect the archetype given in his sources.
- Collect's comment makes a false equivalence: New Zealand politicians, by definition, work for the New Zealand government, and thus have a great deal in common with each other over and above their nationalities. Fictional characters have no implied shared characteristics except not existing. That a category might not be appropriate either does not force us to have a list; we can have neither.
- The rest don't make any arguments based on our guidelines as the majority of the project understands them.
- Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 25 June 2010 (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.
- 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 redirect to Homestar Runner. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Limozeen
- Limozeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a fictional band written in-universe with absolutely no reliable sources. Most of the information contained in the article is patently false, (i.e. "label," "members," "singles"), since the band does not exist. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Homestar Runner as a likely search term. Whereas we do have articles for fictional artists, most of those acts have become actual groups in reality with real albums and singles released. Or, at the very least, have reliable third party references. All of this article's references come from YouTube, Last.fm or the Homestar Runner Wiki, all of which are more or less unreliable first party sources. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Homestar Runner as per above. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: plausible search term. Only covered in primary sources as of yet but maybe it can be split back out once secondary sources are found. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: not much more to say than is said above. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 19:47, 20 June 2010 (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.
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Characters in Jin Yong's novels
- Characters in Jin Yong's novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Purely WP:OR. No references cited. Has been an WP:ORPHAN for three months. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 04:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is quite redundant. Some of the information can be relocated to the respective individual character articles, such as Dugu Qiubai, Zhang Wuji, List of Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils characters etc. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 04:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the previous editors attempted to create an OVERVIEW of the characters in Jin Yong's works, be it major or minor, male or female. However, it is seriously disorganised, with a clutter of things here and there and there's nothing that really catches one's attention - some important events are mentioned, but they aren't really described (for example, the involvement of historical figures). By the looks of the article, it may need a complete revamp to be a good one again, so there shouldn't be any problems with deletion. NoNews! 00:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could it be possible that the information came from this book? I think I saw a copy of the book in our high school library before, but I cannot remember the exact title. Maybe it's another book. It can serve as a reference for articles on Jin Yong characters. 暗無天日 contact me (聯絡) 13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (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.
Fictional element Proposed deletions
no articles proposed for deletion at this time
for occasional archiving
- Clarice Bean (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Deleted
- Lily van der Woodsen (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted
- 'Podger' Pam Jolly (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted
- Chadam Mihlberger (via WP:PROD on 13 December 2007) Kept; subsequently deleted via AFD
- Abby Morgan (via WP:PROD on 3 December 2007) Redirected→Dawson's Creek#Additional Cast Members
- Bessie Potter (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2007) Deleted
Templates
- Template:BibleAsFact (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:BibleAsFact)
- Template:in-religion-universe (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:in-religion-universe)
- Template:Bible-in-universe (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:Bible-in-universe)