Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalida Neferher

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. Fram (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Khalida Neferher

Khalida Neferher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable game character with no reliable, independent sources as references. Graevemoore (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as gamecruft. Of limited to no interest to those who do not play the game. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no secondary coverage whatsoever; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and verifiable fictional character. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a reason for anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How is this notable? Show me the independent sources. Simply saying "Well they might exist" is pointless; by that criterion, nothing should ever be deleted (which, I suppose, is something that you want). Graevemoore (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What have you turned up on your searches? Something that you can hold in your hands has real world notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • My searches have turned up nothing. But, apparently, you want me to prove a negative. And a franchised action figure is not independent of the source. By your qualification, I guess the 3/8" carriage bolt sold by BoltDepot.com also should have its own article? Where is the "has an action figure" section of WP:N. Show me the line of WP:N that it meets. You keep making this assertion of notability, but you've provided no evidence to support it. Note that evidence should be provided in some form that actually has relevance to WP:N. Graevemoore (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Something that appears in games and in statues is notable. It thus passes our notability polcies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Which part of WP:N is that? As I asked, please make specific reference to the part of WP:N that you believe this meets. Graevemoore (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I see nothing on that link that suggests this article does not meet the guideline. The article is consistent with our policy on specialize encyclopedias. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Because there is no substantial coverage in reliable, independent media. Let's stop going around in circles. That is the single notability criterion. Please show me how this meets it. Tell me how a source that is reliable and independent has substantially covered this character. Additionally, just because something is consistent with one rule doesn't mean that it's consistent with the rest. Graevemoore (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as sheer gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge useful content to List of major Warhammer Fantasy characters. Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional character which has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and whose article is entirely plot summary with no real-world context or significance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a WP article this fails according to: notability, verifiability, its orphan status, and its in-universe style. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Not everyone has faith that all articles have independent, reliable sources with substantial coverage. There is no point to making that kind of reply. Graevemoore (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • There's no reason not to help in the search. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I certainly understand that you would like the burden of proof for deletion to be raised so high that it would almost never be achieved. But, yes, lack of belief that such sources exist is absolutely a reason to not expend more than a modest amount of effort on searching for sources. References should be the foremost requirement for the creation of new articles, and there is no reason that an old article should be exempted from that scrutiny. Graevemoore (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doctorfluffy. Jakew (talk) 20:13, 19 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.