Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makuta (Bionicle)

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 no consensus. Suggest editorial discussion on talk page of article about possible merge. lifebaka++ 04:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makuta (Bionicle)

Was both tagged for speedy and prodded, but the author removed the tags. This article is unverified and the subject is not notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

Though I doubt the fact that this article meets notability (which, contrary to popular belief, is not actiually a policy, and therefore is not full justification), it is something someone would look up. Someone wanting to know what a Bionicle Makuta was aren't going to go to the virtually unknown Bionicle Wiki, they're going to go to their good friend Wikipedia.
The article that I split this from (Characters and groups in Bionicle) was just getting to long.
I notice that the warning states that it is underly verifiable. Well, it does have plenty of source, but for some reason anything on the citations beyond the little numbers won't show up, and I'm not a wiki-formating geek (no "references" section magically appeared).
Notability is not a policy, it's a guideline. It's not the word of god.

All in all, please listen to my argument before acting in haste. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I choose to suggest deletion for any and all articles whose keep proponents use "I doubt the fact that this article meets notability (which, contrary to popular belief, is not actiually a policy, and therefore is not full justification)" as a keep reason. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it looks like it just might squeak bye WP:FICT, cant say I am an expert at telling how notable fictional groups are though.. - Icewedge (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss on the talk page how to deal with the material. It is not obvious to me how this list should be handled. There are indeed a lot of characters, and dealing with them in group seems sensible; this is already a combination article, and merging it much further may not be reasonable. . Since we can verify from the primary source, we can arrange the material how we think most useful. I have sympathy for those who would like to combine this sort of material, but I'd have more if the merges didn't tend to lose material. There is one great virtue of a merge--there is not need to show anything about notability of the individual parts. Not that one necessarily can't, but it does save argument.DGG (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally in-universe, no independent sources and not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've formatted the refs properly so that people may assess them more easily. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Characters and groups in Bionicle. Article is written primarily in an in-universe style, and there is no indication of notability in the real world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. No reliable sources to establish notability. Those references to "Federation of Fear" don't appear to work. The other references are blogs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Axl is incorrect. Though they are labeled as "blogs", they are actiually stories told in journal entries, quite distinct from, say, a myspace blog. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean: they are stories disguised as blog entries. However they are from bioniclestory.com, unfortunately not a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actiually it is, as it is an offical site made by Lego, the makers of Bionicle. If one goes to www.Lego.com, Products, Bionicle, a link to Bioniclestory.com is very obvious. Also, at the bottom of the many pages there is a compyright warning which cleary states that the site is owned by Lego. Lastly, recent bionicle commercials on TV say "go to Bioniclestory.com". It is an official site. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "reliable sources" states "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." (Emphasis mine.) bioniclestory.com is not third-party. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well where else am I going to get storyline info? Articles on fictional universes often use first-party (offical) sources. Also, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That doesn't technically apply here. You are trying to convince us why this article should be kept, telling us to ignore all rules is not an argument that will win you this article's stay on this wikipedia. This article does not meet our notability requirements, which as stated are, significant coverage from multiple reliable 3rd party sources that are independent from the subject. The reason a primary source cannot be trusted as a source is because the primary source usually endorses the subject matter, and therefore cannot be used as a source to establish notability.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 05:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that G7 now applies to the article. However, given a few edits by other editors and this AfD, I decline to delete it. However, should another administrator wish to do so, feel free. Otherwise, this AfD can run its course. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:57, 23 September 2008 (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.