Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightmare King

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 REDIRECT to Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland. -Splash - tk 18:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nightmare King

Nightmare King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional character. Article is almost entirely plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Nightmare King' 'Little Nemo' -wikipedia" on Google returns only 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 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Shazama Deleta JuJube 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland, there's not enough content to merit a seperate article. Edward321 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as this stub has no real world content, primary or secondary sources and is comprised of plot summary.--Gavin Collins 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Stubs by their very nature lack content and sources. Are you saying all stubs should be deleted? Edward321 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT to Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland, the parent article this is a fork of. Character doesn't have independent notability to warrent its own article. —Quasirandom 02:15, 7 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) 18:13, 8 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.