Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original character

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 keep. Notability is established by the precence of ample sources in the scholar search. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original character

Original character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unsourced original research, non-notable for a separate article. I say delete this and merge any salvageable material into Glossary of fan fiction terms. - Sikon (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Standard term in fan fiction, not original research. Google scholar turns up sufficient coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreed, this is a notable term. However the article is completely lacking in sourcing, so things such as the Google Scholar link about should be added. 23skidoo (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems to be a clear neologism to me. Notability is not determined by hits on a search engine, most of which in this instance are merely uses of the words and not sources for the notability of the term. --neonwhite user page talk 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite I find this article notable. It does need to be rewritten, though. archanamiya · talk 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and redirect to Glossary of fan fiction terms#OC. The Google Scholar search cited above suggests borderline notability at best, and does not support most of the claims made in the article. The Original character article is unsourced, so there is nothing to merge into the Glossary article. The best solution would be to source the OC (Original Character) section of the Glossary article and leave the information there.--FreeKresge (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, on the basis of DE's search resyults.DGG (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

::If your "Keep" vote is based on WP:GOOGLEHITS, then I will suggest you to read AfD policies again before joining any AfD discussion further. A comment like "on the basis of X user's search results" is doing no help in a constructive AfD debate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hits on search engines are not a criteria of Notability. See WP:GOOGLEHITS--neonwhite user page talk 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
in my comment, shorthand, for "on the basis of the existence of the good sources found in the search" DGG (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Such as? 152.3.247.44 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The words are found in a limited number of articles with only one attempting a very abrupt defintion of the intitials 'OC' and the reliability of that is unclear. I think it is quite clear that this is a neologism which is only used within a very limited area of interest and not in wider use. Therefore is not appropriate for wikipedia and would likely struggle to be included in wiktionary as well. --neonwhite user page talk 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep They were referring to Google Scholar, an index of academic journals. At any rate, the "Fanfiction Writing and the Construction of Space" article explains the "original character" term. Article should be restructured around published sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above reasons.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Google Scholar hits can be used to provide ample sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So far nothing has been provided and search hits hits are not a criteria for notability as has already been explained. --neonwhite user page talk 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per FreeKresge. Article is uncited (tagged for citations since 2006) and is original research. Essentally the suggested target says all that the actual article says - it's a fluffed out dicdef. B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per David Eppstein. Is a meaningful term in reliable sources. Just needs referencing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 9 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.