Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cluedo characters

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cluedo characters

I nominate this article for deletion on the grounds that it is unverified, contains a single source that violates our policy on reliable sources, is filled with weasel words, violates our policy on neutral point of view, and smacks of original research. Ordinarily I believe in cleanup first, but the article as it stands is so full of original research and unverified statements that I believe it best to scrap it and start over. There is so much work to do in separating out fact from fancy that it is not worth it, in my opinion. Captainktainer * Talk 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see this article as irredeemably bad. Needs sourcing definitely, cleanup for sure, but not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Firstly, I believe the nominator is mistaken about the article being "single source". I created this article by merging separate articles on each character. Perhaps he mistook that as a single-editor article creation. It was not. Secondly, in terms of its existence, this article satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article on Cluedo and this list are long enough to spin the list of characters off as a separate article, per the guidelines. Thirdly, I agree with much of the nominator's criticism of the content of the article. I didn't write any of it. There is a lot there that sounds like speculation and original research. This does not affect the merits of having an article on these characters, as long as material about the characters is verifiable in principle. I have no idea whether the information in this article is supported by materials published in the game, the computer game, the movie, the musical, the TV show, the books, and the spinoff games, but it seems ridiculous to claim that information about characters that have appeared in so many media cannot be verified. Finally, the appearance of these characters in so many media as well as references to them in pop culture probably qualifies them as notable in their own right. This article probably needs some heavy and critical editing, and contains much that should be removed, but deleting it altogether would not be in accord with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--Srleffler 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment By single source, I mean that there is only one source (not even a reliable source) in the article. As for "verifiable in principle," that does not meet the verifiability policy that I posted for all discussion participants to read in my nomination for deletion - as the policy states, The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. There are no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, therefore Wikipedia should not have this article. Not that I do not in any way dispute the article on notability grounds, but that is not the primary reason to delete an article. Failing policy is grounds for deletion, and this article fails the tripod of core policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Captainktainer * Talk 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The sources are, of course, the game, the movie, the books, the musical, the TV show, etc. Yes, the article should cite its sources. Failing to do so is not grounds for deletion, however, only grounds for a good cleanup. Note also that the standard is verifiability, not that the article has been verified. An article that hasn't been verified, but can be verified is fine. The policy forbids articles on topics that cannot be verified. From the policy: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Any reader can go rent the movie, read the books, etc. The contents of the article are therefore verifiable. If there are specific claims within the article that are not supported by any of these sources, they should be removed, but that is a different matter from the question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on the Clue characters.--Srleffler 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As the policy says, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources," and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." There isn't wiggle room to say "There could be sources provided, and we should leave those statements in because someone could check and find sources." The only source in the entire article that remotely qualifies is the link to the Clue Musical cast page- and even then, that information is only valid for the Clue Musical cast, and would probably be better treated on the Clue Musical page. At this point, if I were to edit the entire article such that it complied with Wikipedia policies, we would be left with two sentences per Clue Musical character, and the page would be a slam-dunk candidate for merging. The deletion policy specifically indicates that articles filled with Original Research should be deleted (not deleted and protected, just deleted; pages can be deleted for reasons other than notability or encyclopedic worthiness). If a statement is uncited, it's original research.Captainktainer * Talk 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Your article, Iron_Heroes does not have a single citation and is full of facts. By your definition, it should be deleted. I have taken the initiative (WP:BE BOLD) and marked your page as needing citation and added fact reminders to first paragraph -- though really you should be adding a citation for nearly every sentence in the entire article, as they are all facts. Liu Bei 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment You're incorrect about the citations - the book itself is the source for most of the claims (and I have added and am maintaining the cite.php format); page numbers are helpful but not mandatory. Nevertheless I will be adding page numbers over the next month as I have time, and I have added external links for claims not directly related to the book. I am going to assume good faith and not take this as an example of retribution for "attacking" a favored article. Captainktainer * Talk 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • If a book is the source of the claims in Iron_Heroes, why can't we just cite the Clue novel once in this article? Liu Bei 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
          • That would probably be fine for now, so long as it's clear that the claims are from the novel - and anything not from the novel or another cited source would be deleted, of course. The preferred solution, of course, to prevent fact challenges, would be to add page numbers. Captainktainer * Talk 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
          • As of yesterday, this article has references to eighteen books, and the film. This of course doesn't change much: it only makes it a very well-referenced crummy article. Another editor, however, has gone through and cleaned up the text a bit, removing some of the speculation and poor writing. I'm sure there is more to be done...--Srleffler 03:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There's nothing wrong here that a good cleanup wouldn't fix - certainly not a deletion candidate. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Captainktainer has not sourced his claims that this article has violated Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I recommend this AfD be immediately terminated as these claims must be considered original research. Liu Bei 17:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Beg pardon??? Almost none of the statements in the article are backed up by reliable sources. I bring for example the Colonel Mustard section. "Weaving together the strands collected from Clue mythologies and Hasbro's lore" - that's a patent example of original research. The closest thing managed to a citation is "there is a rumor from the movie" - that's very doubtful, and doesn't answer the questions about the veracity of the entire rest of the article. For that matter, please read WP:V again - the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article, not the editor proposing deletion. I would ask in return that you provide evidence that even the majority of statements in the article are properly sourced per WP:RS. Thank you.Captainktainer * Talk 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I was being facetious that since most AfD nominations do not source their claims outside of wikipedia, they should be considered original research. (IE - they would need to get another webside to corroborate the claim that article X is against wikipedia policy). It was an attempt to show how ludicrous the original research/verifiability policy is. Liu Bei 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Verifiability and Original Research policies only apply in the article namespace, not outside. And whether it's ludicrous or not, it's Wikipedia policy, which overrides consensus. Captainktainer * Talk 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not the greatest article, but not delete worthy. If unable to stand alone, merge as appropriate into some of the pages on the disambiguation page Clue. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:23, 24 July 2006 (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.