Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lune Zoldark
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. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lune Zoldark
This article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, since it is almost entirely plot summary and character history without real-world context or importance, and WP:FICT, since reliable secondary sources are not provided to establish notability. Google returns only non-WP:RS fansites and the like, which indicates that this article likely cannot pass notability guidelines no matter what. I both tagged the article and raised my concerns on the talk page a month ago and it has not been improved so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, here's a pretty problem for you. Per our style and notability guidelines, articles for characters that are not independently notable should be merged, not deleted. However, the closest thing to a target is Banpresto Original Characters, which lists characters not just from this character's games but ALL games by the originating studio -- and only as links, not short summaries. The article for the games themselves does not have a character section. I note, however, that the text of that article claims that the characters are part of what made the games so notable, and that reviews can be found to support this in gaming magazines. (Like the nominator, though, I'm not quickly finding any sources online, but the earliest games are from before the 'Net -- and I'm not a gamer to know where to look other than blindly.) What I would like to have happen is that the relevant WikiProject be notified that the entire suite of articles needs to be revisited for organizational problems (which are severe) and notability concerns, and if nothing is done after a good-faith period of time (I suggest a couple months, given the size), and then if nothing is done then bring this and its sister articles back to AfD, where I'll quite gladly vote for delete. Keep for larger-scale cleanup and a hearty thanks to the nominator for having tagged and waited before bringing it to AfD (even if I want more notification). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your articulate response. First, this article is a rather blatant violation of WP:NOT#PLOT; there is zero real-world context. Per WP:FICT's section on merging, In-universe information should be condensed or removed as necessary, and meaningful real-world content should be integrated. There is currently no real-world content in the article to be merged elsewhere. I don't see what from this article could be put in a parent article of the series' characters. If you followed such a course on a larger scale, instead of having a bunch of small articles that fail policy, you'd just have one larger one that still likely fails policy. I do acknowledge that the entire set of characters may be more notable than each individually, but I'd like to see sources before we go down that road. Second, as you noticed yourself, it doesn't appear that reliable, secondary sources exist to establish notability for this specific character or to add any encyclopedic information on the subject. Lastly, I think a month is plenty of time to wait. That's actually longer than I was planning to wait in the first place, but I decided to be generous. Frankly, I just don't see what effect extra time would have. It seems like anybody who would've noticed my comments, even largely inactive editors, likely would have done something to improve the article by now. A month without such improvements indicates to me that nothing will ever be done, so I started the AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I quite agree that the plottiness needs condensing and more real-world context needs adding, especially to establish notability. I'd still like the video game Wikiproject to be directly notified and given a chance to improve things, however, as the members may have access to print reviews etc from before Google's usual reach. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I just find it extremely unlikely that anything you are describing will happen. I doubt such sources exist and, even if they did, I doubt the person who has them will improve the article. A month is plenty of time to do something and even after the article was directly in danger of deletion (AFDed) still nobody has done anything. Assuming this AFD doesn't go through, the most likely outcome is that the article remains untouched for a few months and then I nominate it again, and we have the same discussion. If the article is deleted and then amazingly someone produces legitimate sources then the article can easily be recreated. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I quite agree that the plottiness needs condensing and more real-world context needs adding, especially to establish notability. I'd still like the video game Wikiproject to be directly notified and given a chance to improve things, however, as the members may have access to print reviews etc from before Google's usual reach. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your articulate response. First, this article is a rather blatant violation of WP:NOT#PLOT; there is zero real-world context. Per WP:FICT's section on merging, In-universe information should be condensed or removed as necessary, and meaningful real-world content should be integrated. There is currently no real-world content in the article to be merged elsewhere. I don't see what from this article could be put in a parent article of the series' characters. If you followed such a course on a larger scale, instead of having a bunch of small articles that fail policy, you'd just have one larger one that still likely fails policy. I do acknowledge that the entire set of characters may be more notable than each individually, but I'd like to see sources before we go down that road. Second, as you noticed yourself, it doesn't appear that reliable, secondary sources exist to establish notability for this specific character or to add any encyclopedic information on the subject. Lastly, I think a month is plenty of time to wait. That's actually longer than I was planning to wait in the first place, but I decided to be generous. Frankly, I just don't see what effect extra time would have. It seems like anybody who would've noticed my comments, even largely inactive editors, likely would have done something to improve the article by now. A month without such improvements indicates to me that nothing will ever be done, so I started the AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteNothing more then an original research plot summary. I doubt there is anything beyond first parrty sources for any of this. Ridernyc (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Quasirandom Hobit (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Doctorfluffy. At the moment it has no real-world context or sources and even no in-universe sources; I don't think it likely that the article can be improved, as my Google search for "Lune Zoldark" turns up no reliable sources in the first five pages. Of course, if reliable sourcing does pop up, a recreate would be perfectly acceptable. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking good cites and any verifiability of notability as a fictional character. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as article fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT; there are no sober arguments for keeping this fancruft. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Quasirandom. Article passes WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article blatantly breaks both of those policies, so I find it difficult to accept that you would argue otherwise if you read the article and are familiar with said policies. Please articulate your arguments on how this passes WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:04, 4 January 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.
