Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Sword of Truth characters

Add links
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 Sword of Truth. Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sword of Truth characters

[edit]
List of The Sword of Truth characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTPLOT, a policy, articles must not contain only plot summary. This here is nothing but plot summary. In addition, it's unsourced (WP:V), and I would be very surprised if the topic of the characters in this novel series, as a group, had received the kind of coverage required per WP:GNG.

This type of article often devolves into a dumping ground for fancruft better suited for fan wikis. That this has happened here is apparent from the fact that it is written in an in-universe style, portraying the fiction as real, contrary to our manual of style (Wikipedia:Real world). It would need a complete rewrite to be anywhere near MOS-compliant, and is therefore a WP:TNT candidate even if one were to be of the view that a list of this sort has a place here, which I do not. In Wikipedia, significant characters are generally better treated as part of the (appropriately concise) plot summaries in the context of the articles about the respective works.  Sandstein  22:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to all of the above: You do not explain how this list is notable per WP:LISTN. To be so, not only must the series be notable, but also the distinct topic of its characters. At least, these characters must have received substantial coverage in independent reliable souces, which is not apparent here (unlike, say, the Game of Thrones characters). – As regards cleanup: The article is tagged for sources since 2007. If nobody has improved it since then to the point of showing notability, most likely it can't or won't ever be.  Sandstein  10:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The series is notable enough that a television adaptation, Legend of the Seeker, was created about it. And the television adaptation of those characters has gotten enough media attention, including interviews for their portrayers (as I've already noted). If I create a Kahlan Amnell article, I wouldn't want it to be only about the television character. Furthermore, I don't see a need for that, when I can simply cover the casting and creation of the television counterparts in the List of The Sword of Truth characters article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough that I can add about these characters, including Cara, as the behind the scenes "Legend of the Seeker - Meet Cara" video is indicative of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And your "If nobody has improved it since then to the point of showing notability, most likely it can't or won't ever be." argument is weak. There are so many Wikipedia articles, including WP:Stubs, that have been tagged for cleanup, sources, or expansion for several years and still haven't been cleaned up, significantly sourced, or significantly expanded even though they can be. And given the various topics I work on here at Wikipedia, I should know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting that the series is notable. I'm contesting that its characters are, and that they should therefore, if at all, only be briefly covered in the series article, and not at article length (neither collectively nor per character). The way to counter this argument would to show substantial coverage of these articles in reliable third-party sources, and I'm not seeing any. The "Legend of the Seeker - Meet Cara" video is a promotional video for the TV adaptation; that's not third-party coverage. As to the time aspect, that's just to counter the "give us time" argument: if nobody has done any sourcing work for years even while the TV series ran, it's either impossible to do or nobody cares enough about this apparently quite third-rate franchise to ever do it.  Sandstein  16:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main characters are notable, per what I stated above. There are reliable, third-party sources on those characters, mainly their television adaptations, just like the vast majority of information about The Walking Dead comics and the A Song of Ice and Fire characters concerns their television adaptations. But I see no need to make an article for each of the main The Sword of Truth characters when it can be validly covered in this article you've nominated for deletion. I cited the "Meet Cara" video because it (not that exact YouTube video) can be used as a source, as can DVD commentary, and other primary or secondary sources. As for your time argument, I've countered that it's weak, and I noted why it's weak; I'd rather not repeat why and point to a variety of examples. If this article is deleted, you can expect a new and improved one from me in the future; and that one will not be deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:Notability usually does not pertain to "List of characters" articles anyway; the vast majority of such articles contain mostly non-notable characters, which is why those characters do not get their own Wikipedia articles. Not every notable or non-notable character needs their own Wikipedia article; WP:No page, WP:Spinout and WP:No split are clear about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article had many redirects to sections that were deleted when the article was originally deleted via PROD. If this discussion ends as a keep, all of those redirects should be restored. JDDJS (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I will take a hardliner position in this and claim that without an universe written like in mythopoeia sub-genre (like the Lord of the Rings) or without an in-depth backstory (like the one Westeros has with previous fantasy wars, dragons and stuff), there is little sense of keeping these lists of characters. They tend to devolve into fandom and plot details. Westeros and LoTR universes have characters that are detailed in multiple independent real-world sources, and easily are notable on their own right. The List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters is very useful, and so are the endless lists of lists for the various Dwarven dynasties of Middle Earth. Ceosad (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my modest efforts, I could only find some forum complain that the Sword of Truth has boring philosophy and review pages claiming that it is horrible badly written fantasy. Meanwhile there is an endless wealth of sources on Westeros and Middle Earth. Like this book, and look at the numerous references already used here. WP:LISTN clearly states that: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - -". This will mean that this article clearly fails notability. Furthermore, WP:MUSTBESOURCES would be violated if this article is kept, as we cannot prove notability without any sources. Ceosad (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise with Redirect to Sword of Truth article itself as it is beneficial sometimes to have a separate characters article and I thought of keeping, but this one seems best linked instead to the article itself instead of its own article. SwisterTwister talk 08:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ceosad and SwisterTwister, what do you think of what I stated above to Sandstein about the media attention these characters' television counterparts have received? This is not much different than the television counterparts for the The Walking Dead comics and the A Song of Ice and Fire characters having gotten far more media attention than their book versions; see, for example, the Rick Grimes and Daenerys Targaryen articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:WAX. You'd need to find sources for these characters, not for those from other, apparently better-known franchises.  Sandstein  16:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the main point from my previous statements still applies. This group of characters is not being discussed as a group in the sources. Unless there are many sources which do so, I cannot support keeping this article. The argument that a few main characters are notable on their own right, is a completely unrelated one. If the whole group of characters/cast/whatever is being discussed in the sources, then the coverage may justify inclusion of unimportant and non-notable characters in the list. I agree with Sandstein's previous arguments. Redirecting per SwisterTwister is fine by me. Ceosad (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, there is no need to cite WP:WAX when I already stated above "I'm invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS." It's an essay that can be used to support a matter or not support a matter. I have sources, but I don't need to hurry the process just because you want this article deleted. I don't like being forced to save an article; never have and never will.
Ceosad, I appreciate you weighing in again. But I don't see how the characters need to be discussed as a group; that is not a WP:Notability requirement or a "List of" requirement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I struck part of my comment above because I see you mean WP:LISTN. Above, SSTflyer feels that it does pass WP:LISTN. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant WP:LISTN. By the way Flyer22 Reborn, what sources do you mean? I would like to see them. I do not think here is any hurry, since this AfD probably gets extended at least once again, and I am on a semi-wikibreak due to the holidays anyway. Also, I would like to ask sst✈ why he has concluded that this article does pass the WP:LISTN guideline.
WP:LISTN is a somewhat loose guideline, and I guess I tend to have phobias about WP:INDISCRIMINATE fandom content. I do believe that the notability as a group is among the most important requirements for stand-alone lists. On the other hand I do recognize that some works have rather low inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Practically everything related to a television series or other similar media can be properly justified in the end. Books have much harder time. However, I am not sure what to think about WP:CSC. Ceosad (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Sword_of_Truth_characters&oldid=1077961903"