Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tigerstar

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. Dreadstar † 06:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tigerstar

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

This character has no notability outside the books he is in. Everything is in-universe. Metros (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - In-Universe Shrewpelt (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, bordering on a speedy for no context. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge this and the other character articles from this series into one page. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete It's a soapbox. archanamiya · talk 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment in what way? Beeblbrox (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of reliable references/notability. Luksuh 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Now Keep - I just rewrote the article. It should now have enough out of universe content and references to be kept. Shrewpelt (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Being mentioned as part of reviews of the books that the character is in is not "out of universe". Metros (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Still nothing establishing the characters notability for a stand-alone article. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
and those references do not seem to meet guidelines for reliable sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. The article has third-party sources. Shrewpelt (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What I believe I'm seeing is that you've listed the books themselves and added listings from sites that sell the books, I don't think any of that is reliable third party coverage. The only other thing is an interview on a fan site, unless I am sorely mistaken, you have established verifiability, which I don't believe was under debate here, but not general notability,that is, why the character is important to the general public. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying that. Changing my vote back to delete. Shrewpelt (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Main antagonist for the first six books in a series is a clear sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Warriors (novel series). It seems the character is known only within the context of the series. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 10 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.