Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turaga (Bionicle) (3rd nomination)

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 keep, following an ongoing lack of consensus, which may be tilting towards keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turaga (Bionicle)[edit]

Relisting per DRV: AFD 2 nom: This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and it should finally be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of characters, failing that, delete Sceptre ^(talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle or add to a general list of Bionicle characters due to notability and verfiability as will encyclopedic interest, i.e. per Wikipedia:Five pillars such articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Yes, such published encyclopedias actually exist. Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy all seem to apply here. These seem like reliable sources. The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar. But it does demonstrate that the topic is encyclopedic. Plus, plenty of Google hits for the character. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they demonstrate the validity of our covering this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linked "encyclopedia" is a 160-page licensed guide written by the same author who writes licensed Bionicle children's books. I'm reasonably sure it is neither an independent nor reliable source of info on pretty much any Wikipedia article, and calling it an encyclopedia demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. As for this, there's one book that mentions the franchise as a whole in the real world and would be a hugely valuable source for the main Bionicle article (but not this one), then some juvenile fiction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source nonetheless. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For a different article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for this article as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no potential to grow from a snippet of plot. There are no sources to use to fix it, and the article is three years old with no appreciable improvement in the area of notability or referencing. It is valuable work to excise that which cannot be improved from the project, just as it is important to focus on that which can. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does have potential to grow, at least some sources exist, the article has been improved over those years, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link a reliable source that has been added to the article in those three years? We can copyedit it, we can make it longer, or include more plot, or prettify it. Those are, in a sense, improvements. But they don't improve the key problem: this is an original synthesis of fictional material. This key problem is as old as this article, inherent to this article, and can only be solved by removing this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an article not having been improved is not reason to delete it. Content about the details of a work does not require a separate independent source,since the most reliable source will be the work itself in almost all cases. DGG (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content about cheese does not require a separate independent source, since the most reliable source will be cheese itself in almost all cases.

That's silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

silly? what might be silly is perhaps a comparison of an article about elements of a fiction, which can be sourced from a straightforward obvious factual description in the fiction, with an article on a foodstuff. A fiction is words, spoken or written, and they can be appropriately summarized. Try doing that with cheese. DGG (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Bionicle. Major fiction concept, needs Wikipedia coverage so the readers who are not Bionicle fans can actullay understand what is written in article Bionicle, among others. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The material seems to exist on another wiki so nothing is being "destroyed". --Craw-daddy | T | 14:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Britannica also has a an article on Napoleon, but that's no reason why we shouldn't also have one him. WP:JNN is also an invalid reason for deletion. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete as it fails WP:N, WP:PLOT (and, yes, I know WP:NOT#PLOT is currently under discussion), lacks reliable sources, or any sources for that matter for verifiability. At most given the current information there should be a redirect to Bionicle and include a link to the Bionicle wiki in the main Bionicle article, oh wait it's there already. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's somewhere else we would redirect without deletion then to preserve the edit history and make it easy for editors to repair the article as additional sources turn up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - MiB put it exceptionally well. Eusebeus (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right. Thanks for the heads up! Delete per MiB and per nominator. Eusebeus (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In other words, no original reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as informative about a notable fictional concept, but yeesh, what a rotten article (again, cleanup is no rationale to delete). It need to be maybe 1/3 of its current length, and to have better refs, but is valuable for offering context for non-Bionicle-specialists. Ford MF (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better refs such as what? You've brushed off the problem in an offhand way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 11 June 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.