Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mata Nui (Island)

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 per lack of independent sources indicating notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mata Nui (Island)

Mata Nui (Island) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced (except to blogs and to first-party publications) Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Given the subject matter, first-party publications should be fine. I mean, for just-"facts" stuff at least (not that this isn't fiction, or anything). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A fictional island in a story + no reliable sources = delete. Five Years 11:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have lots of Fictional islands in Wikipedia. First party publications exist. If these are acceptable for Shakespearean islands then they are acceptable here too (though proper citations are indeed needed). Neither of the arguments above hold. Don't delete it, fix it.Filceolaire (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    There are third-party reliable sources for every word Shakespeare ever wrote - Not so the world of Legos.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WAF based on current content. The article is written almost entirely from an in-universe perspective. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: that's not a criterion for deletion - it's a criterion for cleaning up the article. There is enough information in the article for it to be rewritten to conform to WP:WAF. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with Grutness on this point. If I had any knowledge or interest in Lego universes, I'd clean it up myself. This just doesn't seem notable or encyclopedic to me and there are no sources in the article to suggest otherwise. If someone can show me some third party reliable sources on this fictional island, I'll gladly withdraw my nomination.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There may be enough information to write a decent article that follows the style guidelines of WP:WAF. However, the question at hand is, can enough third-party sources be found to demonstrate the subject passes the notability guidelines of WP:FICT. On a quick search, I fail to find any. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While a fictional location may be notable (outside of the fictional universe), there is no evidence that this particular fictional location is notable. Pastordavid (talk) 20:19, 16 April 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.