Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toa Mata/Toa Nuva

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. Canvassing notwithstanding, arguments that the article violates WP:NOT#PLOT are decisive. Complete lack of WP:V sources about the subject is also a factor. Pigman☿ 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Mata/Toa Nuva[edit]

Don't feel like getting in edit war over tagging so here we go. Article is nothing but a giant plot summary of non-notable characters, full of original research based on primary sources. The only bit of real world context should be covered in the main Bionicle article. Ridernyc (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bionicle, as that is the LEGO series these characters are from--CastAStone /^/(talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It tells lots of good information about the Toa Mata and Toa Nuva. It is very absurd to try to delete it.Swirlex (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh I didn't know it was up for deletion which seems quite stupid. We should definetly keep it because you can not find that info any where else on Wikipedia.70.217.249.4 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC) P.S I'm going to notify my Wikipedia Bionicle loving friends to see what they think.[reply]

you might want to read WP:CANVASS, if you bring people here with no edit history they will most likely be ignored as meatpuppets. Ridernyc (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hello I was notified by my friend user 70.217.249.4. and I think that you should never delete this article. One main reason is that I am also a member of Bioniclepedia which has an article like this one and it is very important and I have read over the article we are discussing about and have seen that it contains very rich and valuable info. So overall I think it should be kept.Lhikanmaster (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go out on a limb and accuse Lhikanmaster of being a sockpuppet of User:70.217.249.4. Lhikanmaster has 2 edits, one to make his userpage a bluelink, and the other to this AfD. His account was created two minutes after 70.217.249.4 announced he was going to "tell his friends". 70.217.249.4's first two edits were a mere three minutes after User:Swirlex posted his comment here; While I am not definitively accusing Swirlex of sock-puppetry, It certainly does look suspicious. 89% of Swirlex's edits have been to user, talk, Wikipedia and other non-encyclopedic pages, and nearly all of the user's other edits have been in bionicle-related pages.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the bionicle wikia and there were no edits made to talk pages there during this time frame. Swirlex left me a message on my talk page and I warned him that sockpuppetry almost always cause more harm then good. It would be nice if Lhikanmaster could provide with the name he uses on the bionicle wikia. Ridernyc (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and articles like it are excellent for the Bionicle Wikia, but they lack out-of-universe perspective and will probably always lack it. I suggest that it might be appropriate to merge the article in its present form to Bionicle, and this can be done by discussing the merge on the talk page to achieve consensus. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I object to the deletion of this article and am willing to edit to any extent needed to save this page from deletion.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a well-organized article with multiple references. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is a very good article. Where else are we gonna get this info? I have never seen another site with the Toa Nuva/Toa Mata on it. Ever. They are out of date, and as such, no one wants to have an article about them. It is our job to keep it on here so people can get educated about the past bionicle. (By the way, I think we should add the phantoka while we're at this.)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge for consensus per Tony's suggestion above. It seems unlikely that the article can aspire to anything more than a wallow in in-universe details and as such fails our notability standards. Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article per nom to allow (very limited) editorial merging or transwikiing. Real-world notability is very doubtful, and the article strongly violates WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Unless notability can be established through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 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.