Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavadon
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, nothing to address concerns for deletion. --Coredesat 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gavadon
Non-notable, in-universe use only D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- Mark it as a stub and start a rewrite. The character is clearly notable to the series. Hagan jared 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Notable in the series does not indicate it passes WP:N or WP:FICT. Do secondary sources discuss this topic? Doctorfluffy 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natalie 23:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe the article, while definitely in need of cleanup and perhaps images as well, was nominated in bad faith as per Doctorfluffy's User page. Simply deleting things for the sake of deleting things does nothing to improve Wikipedia. -- Veled 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment My user page is talking about WP:N, which is one of the most important concepts here, and the disrespect it constantly receives from uninformed editors. I suggest you read it. Also, check out WP:FICT, the specific notability policy for fictional subjects, which explains how articles on such topics need references from reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: how does this possibly fulfill the requirement of coverage by multiple secondary sources? Nyttend 05:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fails to assert notability. Fails WP:FICT. Fails WP:PLOT. Bobby1011 05:26, 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." Secondarily, agree with assertion that this was nominated in bad faith. -- Masterzora 20:48, 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)
- 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.
