Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azalin Rex (2nd nomination)

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 No Consensus This sucker needs to be closed and no consensus is the way the way to go, as unsatisfactory as that is. Hey! we live in an imperfect world get used to it. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Azalin Rex

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Azalin Rex Articles for deletion/Azalin Rex (2nd nomination)
Azalin Rex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This appears to be a nonnotable game character with no independent coverage. It has been tagged for notability for about six months, so this nomination should not come as a surprise. Graevemoore (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Horribly written abot a non-notable charachter. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable character in its own right, delete and possibly redirect to Ravenloft. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional character which has no received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Google turned up nothing useful in the first few pages of hits, which indicates such sources do not exist. Additionally, there is no encyclopedic content to merge anywhere since the entire article is plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, too much plot and too little encyclopedic content and actual sources. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per plenty of references and consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on D&D for which there are many published volumes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article has been tagged for lack of citations, the in-universe style of writing, and now for lack of notability. Also, nobody seems to be working on it anymore, and I'd hate to bloat the Ravenloft article with all this questionable material on one character. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well put - Delete Eusebeus (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to Ravenloft. Significant Ravenloft character; although reliable sources may be difficult to find, lack of citations and in-universe style are cleanup issues and not reasons for deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; no independent references so it fails WP:N and should be deleted Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The article has quite a bit of references and I suspect a good search through published sources could turn up more. No real reason to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Le Grand & BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but the article is excessively long and detailed for a general encyclopedia. Problem for editing, not for AfD. "in universe style of writing" is a reason for editing. and so are the other problems. let's be realistic--the question here is not the compliance with the standards that can be interpreted in various ways, depending on the desired result. The actual question is the desired coverage of fictional topics such as this in Wikipedia. People decide on the basis of what they want, and then work up the detailed argument--or the proper catch words if they dont want to actually argue the matter. I could spend the next hour or two, or the next minute or two listing all the general policies that may or may not apply, per others--and do this in either direction. I've done enough of this before, and I'm tired of it. The reason for keeping expansive coverage of fiction is that we want expansive coverage of fiction. the material is V, so we can write the article. We set the guidelines according to what we want. For those who do not want full coverage of fiction, and think we should be a directory type list of publication information in that area--then they will want to delete. DGG (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Editing issues with an article aren't a reason for deletion.Shemeska (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Tagged as not notable, in-universe, lacks reliable sources, and in-text citations (this is a biggie). The notability and citation tags were put on back in November and it seems nothing was done to fix the article. -XxKibaxX Talk 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, It has only 430 Google hits, none on Google News, Books nor Scholar. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That number is rather misleading. Try doing a search for just Azalin, not "Azalin Rex". The former is more common while the latter was a formal title for the character, but rarely used by comparison. That returns around 57000 hits.Shemeska (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The quantity is irrelevant; what matters is the nature of those hits. Going through them, I simply don't see something that is reliable, independent, and contains substantial coverage. Now, I most certainly can't say that such coverage doesn't exist, as that would be proving nonexistence, absent any axiomatic constraints, which isn't really possible. I am relatively certain that it's not there, and the burden of proof rests on those that want the article to remain. Graevemoore (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • 430 is an impressive number and suggests some degree of popularity/notability, but remember sources don't stop at Google. Have you also tried game magazines? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I did a search on just Azalin, it brings the number up to 881. However, azalin is also the name of a photographic chemical, a kind of tree, an anime character (Azalin-chan), and some real people. The Azalin we are debating here had no Google news or scholar hits, and two books published by Wizards of the Coast. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Stop right there. Popularity doesn't equal notability. Please don't conflate the two. Trying to do so ignores the reasons why we have notability in the first place. Graevemoore (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Some things are indeed both popular and notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, and some things can be red and cubical, but there isn't a direct relation between being red and being cubical. Just like popularity doesn't directly make something notable. Graevemoore (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • In this case, however, Azalin Rex is both popular and notable for a paperless online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
              • The assertion of notability has yet to be backed up by actual fact. Graevemoore (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                • These suggest notability, i.e. a character with multiple appearancs in a major franchise, and perhaps a search for reviews of those books can turn up additional out of universe information, commentary on the characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Not at all. Licensed and first party sources have no bearing on notability. Graevemoore (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Can you fin sales figures of these reliable sources or reviews? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • I don't think sales figures constitute substantial coverage. WP:FICT is just a proposal, and therefore sales figures must stand on their own, rather than receiving de jure status as significant coverage. Graevemoore (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per XxKibaxX. Jakew (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Before you get criticized for that sentiment, I'd like to point out that WP:CONSENSUS states that "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved.", so mentioning your agreement with others' opinions is, in fact, a useful part of creating consensus. Thanks for participating. Graevemoore (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Le Roi..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep needs references, but this is a notable character from multiple published sources, which have been reviewed and referenced in third-party sources. These references exist, they just need to be added to the article. Should not be deleted; should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThirdLevelRanger (talk • contribs) 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as this extensive in universe plot summary fails WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate WP:N outside of the game.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominator of this AfD has just been blocked as a ban evading sockpuppet of arbitration committe banned editor Eyrian. As I do not think it appropriate that we should humor banned editors, I recommend either speedy closing this AfD or at least striking his comments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't possibly agree more, and his other contributions should be checked as well to minimize the damage. BOZ (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2008 (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.