Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole)
- updated 2008/04/06 10:45
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 Merge to an character list article, as pointed out below this appears to be the growing consensus. As DGG says, these articles contain little but plot, yet the one-liners in the main article convey little information. And, of course, they're all unsourced. I have redirected the character articles to Guardians_of_Ga'Hoole#Characters_from_the_books and the location articles to the main article for the time being; someone more familiar with the subject can create Characters from Guardians of GA'Hoole. Black Kite 10:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge all into a list of characters article, per the growing consensus (and advice in WP:FICT) that this is the best way to handle fictional character with imperfectly supported notability. I've done only a limited spot-checking, but I see no clear source to establish the independent notability of these characters. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Arg - hit Enter before I was finished editing. I was about to modify the first sentence to read "Merge all but the locations..." The non-characters, I'm at the moment neutral about how to deal with, but leaning towards a selective merge to the series article. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge the characters to an article about the characters, the locations to an article about the locations. This is the obvious copromise way of handling this sort of problem, and supported by all current versions of the relevant guidelines. DGG (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Question for clarification. Are you saying to spin out the existing section into a new article, or to merge these into the existing sections on characters and locations in the series article?--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
answer: Looking at some of these and also the sections in the main article, I would judge that the one-line descriptions in the main article are most of them inadequate, and the long ones in the separate articles most of them excessive (as is usually the case for series such as this). I do not defend the writing of articles in the manner of some of those nominated here--but I also want to see enough information to understand the interrelationships. I can understand why those who want adequate discussions support separate articles, when i see the extreme reduction of material that usually takes place after a merge.
And thus I suggest the compromise solution of an combination article for the characters (and similar ones for other elements of the series) that will be intermediate--with possible separate articles for a few of the most important if the series is important enough for there to have been some third party material on them. The problem in these discussions is that the choice is usually between two extremes. In a group project, where there are incomptible strongly held points of view, the only long-term solution is a compromise--but a fair one, not one that will be subsequently distorted. The actual size will need a discussion uninfluenced by set POVs.) DGG (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete All per WP:FICT. No assertion of real-world significance, backed up by independent, third party sources. Eusebeus (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete All - I agree with Eusebeus there is no indication of the characters' notability outside the fiction. No sources for notability. No sources for the article. No reason to keep--Caililtalk 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge as per Quasirandom, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars: notability to a real-world audience, plenty of references, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In the first of the five pillars that you cite, it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." If you click on that link, it says "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". Could you please point us to an independent, reliable source where we might find that real-world context and sourced analysis?--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You can check through any of these books and then do a search of reviews of these books to find analysis of characters. Anyone familiar with magazines that feature this subject should be able to help search for features on the characters. I have found, for examples, that video game magazines occasionally showcase notable characters, as do comic magazines with comic characters, so a magazine or journal on this particular genre of fiction should turn up at least some results. Way too many individual articles listed above to reasonably go through in one week. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete all Not notable as subjects on their own. Cewvero (talk) 03:53, 6 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.