Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg the Gorilla
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 — if anyone wants a copy for merger purposes, just ask. --Haemo 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Greg the Gorilla
Non-notable fictional character. Article is a summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section, which is discouraged against in WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Greg the Gorilla' -wikipedia" on Google returns only 7 hits, entirely 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 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to List of Bloody Roar characters. Pinball22 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Bloody Roar characters. (A fair number of character articles linked to from there could also use merging into it.) —Quasirandom 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've seen that merging to a unified list is a common proposed solution in many AfDs, but I don't see how that addresses the issues since there appears to be no notable information in the article. Even if you trimmed it down and then merged, instead of a bunch of non-notable articles, you simply have a single non-notable article. Without reliable secondary sources, the presentation of the subject matter doesn't change anything as there is still no way to establish notability and the article would still fail WP:FICT. Likewise, instead of a bunch of individual plot summaries, you have a single article with combined list of plot summaries, still lacking any real-world context or significance. I just don't see there being enough content in the character list to deserve a fork from the main game article itself. Doctorfluffy 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, I don't think the list is likely survive a notability argument, but until the merged list is actually created we won't know -- and certainly a merged list has a better chance of finding sources to support the notability of the subject (the characters as a set, as opposed to each character), one that the editors deserve a good-faith chance at. In general, I strongly prefer incremental improvements: lots of small changes have a better chance of creating opportunities, by letting editors see other possibilities, than sweeping changes do. —Quasirandom 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can see your point about the whole set of characters being more notable than the sum of each individually, but I really doubt reliable sources are going to emerge for these characters. This one had 7 ghits, a few others in the category were actually worse with 4 ghits, and, after googling maybe 10 at random, I didn't find any that broke 200. I wouldn't haven't nominated it for deletion if I thought there was any hope of salvaging anything notable from the article. Doctorfluffy 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, I don't think the list is likely survive a notability argument, but until the merged list is actually created we won't know -- and certainly a merged list has a better chance of finding sources to support the notability of the subject (the characters as a set, as opposed to each character), one that the editors deserve a good-faith chance at. In general, I strongly prefer incremental improvements: lots of small changes have a better chance of creating opportunities, by letting editors see other possibilities, than sweeping changes do. —Quasirandom 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've seen that merging to a unified list is a common proposed solution in many AfDs, but I don't see how that addresses the issues since there appears to be no notable information in the article. Even if you trimmed it down and then merged, instead of a bunch of non-notable articles, you simply have a single non-notable article. Without reliable secondary sources, the presentation of the subject matter doesn't change anything as there is still no way to establish notability and the article would still fail WP:FICT. Likewise, instead of a bunch of individual plot summaries, you have a single article with combined list of plot summaries, still lacking any real-world context or significance. I just don't see there being enough content in the character list to deserve a fork from the main game article itself. Doctorfluffy 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per above STORMTRACKER 94 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as there are no primary sources to verify the content is not original research, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that this fictional creature has any real-world notability.--Gavin Collins 10:10, 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) 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, NN. The entry in the List is sufficient. Smalljim 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:41, 12 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.
