Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alynna Nechayev
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 — Wikipedia may not be paper, but that isn't a free pass for articles. Arguments for keeping do not address the notability concerns raised. If you want a copy for merging, just request one. --Haemo 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alynna Nechayev
Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character's in-universe role with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Alynna Nechayev' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters: N-S. --Goobergunch|? 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." Masterzora 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It has been on meta basically unchanged for 5 years because it has been considered applicable and justifiable for all 5 years. There has been discussion from time to time on the talk page, as recently as 07. It's still active, its still the basis of WP. We're an encyclopedia, first, and we're not a paper encyclopedia. The rest follows. Our principles have not changed, and a knowledge of them remains important. DGG (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I responded to you here. I'd rather not copypaste every rationale through every AfD I've made recently, so perhaps we could restrict the discussion for this topic to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lans Tartare? Doctorfluffy —Preceding comment was added at 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to support the claim to [WP:FICT|notability]] made in the article.--Gavin Collins 10:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Character has appeared in multiple TV series, novels, computer games. Lack of sources is reason for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
