Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters and wildlife in Avatar

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 Keep Around half of the delete comments were grounded in unpersuasive cruft arguements. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and wildlife in Avatar[edit]

Characters and wildlife in Avatar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely regurgitates plot -- either from the primary source or from non-independent supplementary texts. No claim of real-world notability, negligible citations to third-party sources. Fails to offer encyclopedic treatment. Unnecessary fork from content sufficiently and appropriately covered at Avatar (2009 film). --EEMIV (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is an extensive use of incorrect terminologies in your comment: 'entirely regurgitates', 'fails encyclopedic treatment', 'unnecessary fork' and 'sufficiently covered at Avatar (2009 film)'. Please go through and note that the use of these terms are your own personal 'viewpoints and beliefs' and doesn't accurately reflect the actual quality of this article.bhuto (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Fancruft! Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Fancruft: "Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong Reason/Comment As pointed out by Ikip, please read the Fancruft article thoroughly. Fancruft is no reason for an article to be deleted. Instead it is the unencyclopedic behavior of the article, for which it is deleted.bhuto (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but reclaim any useful character information which can be added to the main article. KaySL (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be merge/redirect, as I suggest. Ikip 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a lot of materials, include it within the main article will dramatically change the shape of the current article. Not doable. Yug (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Yug suggested, it will be difficult and inappropriate to merge this vast and minute details of the large world of Pandora, and hence a separate article is very much unavoidable. bhuto (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This article is highly pertinent, it is Pandora's fauna that defeat the humans whilst the flora form a neural network that covers the entire planet. As for it being "fancruft" so what ? Have you people even seen the great number of Star Trek ? Star Wars ? and Star Gate articles on Wikipedia ? Wikipedia has an article on every single episode of Star Trek ! What about the Simpsons ? - each episode has its own article. If this article cannot stay on Wikipedia then you might as well get rid of the articles on Vulcan and Klingon - they too are articles on fictional worlds. With two more planned sequels, this article's importance will continue to grow. Just because somebody doesn't like the article is no reason to redirect or delete it. If you don't like it, don't read it. Tovojolo (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid keep reason, and except for the episodes most of those are covered in reliable, THIRD-PARTY sources. Wikipedia does no operate on potential future notability, and consider how long it took him to make this film, planned sequels are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not here to provide a haven for fans to put all the minute details of the "fauna and flora" of a fictional world from a single film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a valid reason to delete. If the episodes weren't, have you considered deleting those?? You said - Wikipedia is not a haven.....from a single film. Would you have considered, had it been from three films?? Your reasons don't seem to make any justifiable sense. You may not consider this to be a 'haven for fans', but like it or not - in one way or the other IT IS. bhuto (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Ikip 20:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, certainly agree with Ikip, until third-party citations are not provided.
  • Delete consensus on the talk page already supported redirecting it to the main article, but its creator and User:Dream Focus refused to accept that consensus and continued to restore it with false claims that it is needed to provide more plot information on the film. Completely fails WP:N, and purely a repeat of the film plot and original research. Nothing even links to this article. It is purely a hidden article for fan's to put in their pet theories about the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus. Many people were against the redirect. Most post were done the same day, within a short period of time. You tried to redirect the talk page, without giving people enough time to communicate, and others to join in the discussion. Dream Focus 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three people versus eight is more than enough consensus and no one tried to redirect the talk page. Do not tell lies just to try to boost your unstable position. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, more than that were against the redirects, and as someone already pointed out on the talk page, you did not have eight people for it. And assume good faith. Don't go accusing others of lies. Dream Focus 19:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lie is a lie, and that was a blatant one. Don't tell me to assume good faith while stating falsehoods about actions I made and claiming I tried to stifle discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not tell lies" WP:CIVIL please. Ikip 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AnmaFinotera is requested to check her behavior and her counting. Go back and check the Talk Page and count on a piece of paper, the number of people who were against the redirects. What DreamFocus said is absolutely the truth and not 'a blatant lie' as claimed by you. Your own words on the Talk Page had mentioned seven (whereas it should have been six) and here you say eight. You are contradicting your own statements. I am sorry to reveal, but as a matter of fact - you actually do stifle discussions. This very page itself reflects the number of people interested in the existence of this article. bhuto (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said on the talk page, I see it as a valid content split, there valid information that won't fit in the main article. [1] I searched the news archives for the word "Avatar" and then any of the names of the creatures from the film. I see a lot of mentions in the news about this movie, and they all seem to always mention some of the creatures in the film. I think that proves they are clearly notable. The creatures are also mentioned in reviews about the video game based on the film. The three books published about the movie include them as well. I added a bit to the article from the MTV news interview with James Cameron. They stated the creatures were the main reason people were excited about the film, discussing the scene with the dinosaur creature chasing after the main character, in great detail.[2] Dream Focus 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People mentioning the names is not notability. Of course they will be mentioned while giving a synopsis of the film. As usual, you have not provided a single reliable source giving significant coverage of this topic, and rather just throw out google hits and claim that's enough. Three books published by the makes of the film are reliable sources but do not add to notability as no one can make their own notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect with Avatar. Ikip 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible. It'd just end in delete. No way to fit all that content over there, which is why a side article is important. The amount of press coverage on how the creatures were made, and going into detail about them, should be enough coverage to convince people of notability. Dream Focus 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your response was gratifying. :-) I'm waiting to see whether anyone uses it to support keeping this article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because no effort was made to establish real-world context for these details of a fictional topic. Avatar (2009 film) has plenty of room to develop that context for such details, but the article violated WP:PLOT and WP:WAF from the get-go. Work should be done within the film article, and if there happens to be more than enough information about the conception, design, and realization of such elements, then I would instead recommend a Design in Avatar article. In the meantime, there is nothing to salvage here. Erik (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is my preference now that I have overhauled the article to have real-world context. I still maintain that the split was unwarranted and that the context can exist at the main film article. There is an argument that existing toys and a video game warrant this split, but there has never been much more to say about fictional elements when it comes to these. "These creatures appeared in the video game adaptation of the film. Like in the film, a player can ride some of them." There is not much more to be said that can't be explored in-context at the video game article itself. Erik (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very reasonable content split. I assume that some of the reviews of the film have talked about some of the characters. If it's more than just listing them, that's RW notability. . To avoid problems, I advise not trying to make pages on individual characters even if sources would technically justify it . Rather, people should make pages such as this. I point out that such is the only reasonable hope for compromise, especially as the film project still is trying to maintain their idiosyncratic guideline against more than cursory mention of characters in film main articles. The actual question is not how to arrange these, or divide them into articles, but whether we should have reasonably full content. I consider afds such as this a test on whether there is willingness to accept compromise. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • First, we can see on Wikipedia that there are Featured Articles about real-life figures. We do not see Featured Articles about fictional figures that outline their entire biography as presented in the fictional work(s). We see Featured Articles about planets in our universe but not fictional planets in fictional universes as if they were real. We see the same when it comes to fauna and flora. Per WP:WAF, there needs to be a real-world perspective; we are not supposed to reiterate the in-universe perspective, as it is being done here. WikiProject Films acknowledges the need for real-world context; if the analyzing sources are there, we can pull together content. There is no such effort with this article, which is grounded in primary sourcing. As I mentioned in my !vote above, effort should have been made on the film article itself. The film article is the main article on the matter, and we have yet to stretch its size with real-world context. If we can do so, we can do sub-articles like Visual effects in Avatar and Design in Avatar. We cannot automatically assume that a sub-article, especially one as badly written and sourced as this, is necessary. The film article needs to grow as we make contributions, and we can prune it accordingly into sub-articles for easier digestion. Erik (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are featured articles about fictional figures. Bulbasaur was once a featured article, listed on the main page. The film article is quite large already, it best to keep some things in a side article. And no one cares what a WikiProject does, those things always just a handful of people that argue nonstop to get their way, and drive others from them. Also, whether you think something is badly written or not, is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no Featured Articles about fictional figures that that outline their entire biography as presented in the fictional work(s). If Featured Articles about fictional figures exist, they are written with a real-world perspective. The point is that this article fails to do so, and the effort should begin at the film article and branch out from there if necessary. Erik (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a Featured Article review and such articles, by their nature, are exceptional as we can't feature everything. In order for an article to be deleted, we must instead satisfy ourself that the topic is at the other extreme - utterly hopeless. This is not the case here and so deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't need a page devoted entirely to retelling us the plot in such minute detail that we don't even need to watch the film. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the movie. In addition, the page is a clear violation of WP:WAF, borders violating WP:NOR, definite issue of WP:UNDUE, not to mention WP:PLOT. Any real world information is likely going to be pertaining directly to the film, or covered on the film page in general. A brief mentioning about a character in a review of the film doesn't meet the notability criteria for "significant coverage", and unless it can be established that there is such an abundance of real world information about each of these characters that it cannot possibly be covered on the Avatar film page, then there is no reason to have this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for real world mention, did anyone watch the link I added to the article about the behinds the scenes thing shown legally on Hulu? Information on how the Banshee was done, would be fascinating for a section of this article I believe. The creatures get plenty of coverage, this setting the standards for what is now possible, and changing the industry forever. They are quite revolutionary. Dream Focus 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better in a "Design" section at Avatar (2009 film), which no one has attempted. There is room to spare. I also recommend citing the book The Art of Avatar to support such a section. That way, we can build up a real-world perspective of fictional elements and not abuse the primary sources so much. Erik (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: nice summary about a interesting imaginary world. There are sources available, and lot of things to describe -like one delete/merging supporters admit-. Merging will not be that easy, since it will dramatically change the main article (Avatar (2009 film))'s shape => keep. Yug (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia do not "summarize" imaginary worlds not at this length without real-world context. The article is grounded in primary sourcing, written like the people and the flora and fauna really exist. You are making the fallacious assumption that this sub-article should exist outside of the main article about the film; there is little precedent for such splitting for a single film. Effort should be made first at the film article, where it can be shaped accordingly. This will not "dramatically" change the article, as you exaggerate; wildlife can be identified in a "Design" section, and their conception, design, and realization can be detailed. Erik (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, You don't own what wikipedia do and don't do, and should not state "Wikipedia do not ..." : Wikipedia is FUNDAMENTALLY based on the community's consensus. You use fake arguments, make assumptions on my views, and yes : include the full content (3xA4) of this article into Avatar (2009_film) will unbalance it, unless we accept large content deletion. --Yug (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ecosystem of this setting is notable and has been compared to Star Wars in its richness. Deletion will not assist us in covering the notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are using the word "notable" incorrectly here. All these elements are known as part of the main topic, the film itself. Visual effects is another such commonly-reviewed part of the film, but we accommodate details about that just fine in that article. There can be a "Design" section that uses secondary sources to describe the real-world context of these elements. Erik (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my usage. The main article upon the film is already too large at 76K. We have spin-off articles for the music and the game and this article seems a fine complement to these, providing a good framework for the ecological background. This is, as I have stated, a notable topic. Here, for example, is a substantial source which discusses the botany of the setting. This is just a fraction of the material which we must consider and cover. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is where this article's content should be. One editor said Avatar was like Star Wars; well, let this be Cameron's Wookieepedia! That way, we can get back to writing encyclopedic content. Erik (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's enough coverage on this film to have 10s of articles that pass the GNG. This is a reasonable (and small) start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:There is no deadline, Wikipedia:What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion, etc. due to the subject attracting mainstream coverage in reliable sources. See for example Entertainment Weekly #1081 (December 18, 2009) for an article alluded to on its cover "James Cameron on Avatar" with a picture of the main female Na'vi. The seven page long article includes a feature called "8 Things You Need to Know About Avatar" on page 48 of the magazine for which I happen to have a subscription. This listing includes various out of universe development information such as "3. Cameron gave the Na'vi feline features to make them more relatable," as well as other comments about the Na'vi and Pandora. Such information is easily integrated into the article to provide reliably sourced out of universe context that per WP:PRESERVE is at worst mergeable. And that is just scratching the surface of what that and other sources possess. Even HBO on demand has a making of documentary with out of universe discussion of the fictional elements of the film. HBO and Entertainment Weekly and not some kind of niche media. Nor does one need to go to the end of the Earth to find such resources. This movie, which has grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and has therefore been seen by millions worldwide, has already also been adapted to a video game with coutless buyers. Put simply, the idea that aspects of something for which millions of people around the world have seen is not "real world notable" and for which non-fansites cover and discuss the details of this work of fiction in an out of universe manner is not reasonable. Finally, there is no dire or pressing need to delete something that is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid content split. What happened to the human section while i was gone?username 1 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup once the furor has died down. Why the rush to take things to AfD, really? By the time the dust settles, there will be a number of reliable secondary sources about the topic. No, I don't have a crystal ball, but the media coverage of Avatar is substantial, extensive, and ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article seriously needs cleanup (copyediting and sourcing) but its concept is valid, and it's a good content spin-out as pointed out above. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. For people who claim it has not verifiable sources - the information is found in magazines and also in the two books released as merchandise for this film. Over a period of time the article sections will be cited appropriately. bhuto (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article may need cleanup but the content can be found all over internet from official and third party sources.Also some spelling issues must be resolved.
  • Strong Delete, I'm sorry, why does a single film need to have an article devoted to non-culturally relevant characters and "wildlife". Sure the film is notable, but not so much the characters. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is NOT a single film, but also a multiplatform video game, etc. Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora, a 224-page book in the form of a field guide to the film's fictional setting of the planet of Pandora, was released by Harper Entertainment on November 24, 2009. Thus, the characters are verifiable through multiple reliable sources and appear in a film, video game, and even as action figures, etc. seen/played by millions of people worldwide. That is notable by both the Wikipedic definition and by the common sense standard. Characters that can be seen on screen, read about in a book as well as in reviews/previews, and played in a video game and as toys are unquestionably culturally relevant. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely agree with A Nobody. He has made a very good and useful point. bhuto (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple aspects of the film are starting to get serious amounts of significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is completely useless - relevant info already in the main article on Avatar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.204.34 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A reasonable fork of a daughter article from a parent one. If merged, this information (especially once worked up and completed) would swamp the original in a quite inappropriate manner. The subject matter is notable. It's a keeper. --Dweller (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. I tried to include the wildlife of Pandora in the Characters list on the main page of AVATAR and someone kept deleting it. I thought of making a new article just for that and someone did it already. The wildlife in Pandora is very important for the movie Avatar including its plot. This article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedannayya (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge After reading all of the comments here I believe the article is not needed. The actual film article isn't that large and if there was any useful information in this article it could be moved over there. Relating this article to the world of Star Wars is a bit of a stretch seeing how that universe consists of a plethora of movies and books and this is only one movie. Many of the sources currently on the article are from a fansite (Pandorapedia) which is not a reputable source. There was a comment made that they're are not many sources for this information and that the article should be kept but then that just means there won't be any sources to use. A nice concise copy of the information could be simply added to the main article. --Peppagetlk 16:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that it is NOT a single film, but also a multiplatform video game, etc. Avatar: A Confidential Report on the Biological and Social History of Pandora, a 224-page book in the form of a field guide to the film's fictional setting of the planet of Pandora, was released by Harper Entertainment on November 24, 2009. Thus, the characters are verifiable through multiple reliable sources and appear in a film, video game, and even as action figures, etc. seen/played by millions of people worldwide. That is notable by both the Wikipedic definition and by the common sense standard. Characters that can be seen on screen, read about in a book as well as in reviews/previews, and played in a video game and as toys are unquestionably culturally relevant. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read where you wrote that up there. I was just mentioning that when compared to Star Wars information there is no comparison. I kinda assumed that video game information would go on the video game article, since it has its own page. The characters exist, I got it. Still doesn't mean the information shouldn't go on the main film article. There are still bad references on the page, perhaps the action figures should be used as a reference. --Peppagetlk 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peppage, I do not believe that Pandorapedia is a fan site. This shows that the registrant is 20th Century Fox. In any case, such in-universe descriptions can be located in the "Confidential Report" book A_Nobody mentioned. I've done my best to keep such descriptions belief and to add real-world context. Erik (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok but it sure looks like a fan site. I really expect sites for movies to be professional. This looks like something I could write in a few hours. I hope that the book is used for future references on this article. --Peppagetlk 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is the most cruftiest cruft I've seen in a long while. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, this trivia belongs on a fan-site. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Cruft" is a non-academic nonsense term no one takes seriously. This non-trivial information concerning notable fictional subjects verifiable in multiple reliable sources belongs on Wikipedia. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryan, it had a lot of in-universe detail before, but I worked on it to have real-world context. At least consider a merge instead so none of this context is lost in deletion. Erik (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry mate although I respect the work you put in, I still feel that this subject is too narrow for inclusion on Wikipedia and would be better served on a fan-site. The fauna stuff stands up better than the rest of the largely unreferenced "Human" and "Navvi" sections. Add any good, new content to the main article, if it survives there, then it's obviously worthy of inclusion. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure cruft, absolutely not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Convince geocities to re-open and put a page there for this. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the outcome of the AFD is not to delete the article, I ask everyone who involved (or just reading this) to review my proposed move on the talk page to adjust the scope of the article accordingly. Depending on discussion, a move will be requested officially soon after closure if consensus is not to delete. Erik (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this article needs some editing and sourcing, I believe it is worth letting some people add some more about this movie. The 300 hundred million dollars were not all spent on computers - some thought is in it too, you only need to recognize it. I added the picture of the earth-based animal that inspired one the Avatar fauna ; I suppose quite a lot of the movie deliberately points at things, and I believe it is worth it to mention them.--Environnement2100 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With over 50K page views since the page was created one week ago (source), the topic is certainly notable. In addition to all the mainstream coverage in reliable sources, there is enough information that can be used to create a useful article. The main article is already long enough, so merging the content from this article into the other article will only make it harder for readers to get a good overview of the topic. The fact that Avatar already is an entire franchie, with more movies likely to be released in the future, in addition to video games on multiple consoles and at least one book about the topic makes this a significant subject. Mathias-S (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears to be a standard fictional character article, well referenced and too large to be merged into the main article. As a lover of Russian fiction, I know you can't have just one article for complex stories with multiple characters. And of course this a vertical franchise with a book, and a video game. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is fine, it goes deeper into this subject. However, the "Reception" section should be deleted. --User:PocketPup 21:42 29 December 2009
  • Merge to Avatar (2009 film). I wish we could see less emphasis placed on arguments over an subject's notability and more on what's best for those wanting to learn about it. There's little doubt that there is decent material here, or at the very least the prospect of good material being added in the future. But I've seen little consideration of what's best for our readers, a group we often forget when arguing over whether a subject "deserves" its own article. In this case, the useful material would sit far more comfortably and conveniently in the parent article, where that wider context, that framework, would allow it to be better understood and valued. Steve T • C 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some work of course but a decent start. For those who think this sort of thing is an unnecessary extension of the main article, try looking at Template:Middle-earth and drill down into the lists of Peoples, Realms etc. that provide navigation into hundreds of articles. Of course, I doubt we will need to go "quite that far with Avatar" (could become a catchphrase) but I think a properly referenced article explaining some of the background detail is more than acceptable - and if I may say so I very little time for much of the mass of "in popular culture" trivia and borderline spam that we routinely tolerate here. Tslolam? Ben MacDui 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) PS Quite agree with PocketPup re the "Reception" section etc.[reply]
  • Keep The ecosystem plays a major role in the film, it's a major film, and there's too much information for it to be folded into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarkonnen (talk • contribs) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with some of the above posts that this is a good read, very informative, and would be very hard to implement into the main film article. It would be fine in my opinion with more reliable sources. DrNegative (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't mean to single anyone out, but I just thought I'd point out (as I'm seeing several editors make what I perceive to be a mistake) that should a merge be desirable, there is enough room to accommodate the information from this article at Avatar (2009 film)—remember, not all of it would make it across and some is already present (plus, the main article could do with a minor c/e that would reduce the size a little). Steve T • C 08:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there's room, the question isn't space, it's appropriateness. Including too much of this material would imbalance the article. It's fairly standard in Wikipedia for daughter articles to be split off from parents, to avoid this imbalance, and examples of this abound in every topic you can imagine. I'd also add that as a very very recent film, both articles we are discussing will grow, develop and improve with time.

Here's what WP:SUMMARY has to say: Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, that rather than delete the page, take out the information regarding the film, such as the parts after the humans section, and merge them into the main article, and then edit it so that it treats the Avatar world as a fictional world more. There's no need to delete this page, it just needs cleaning up is all. - Zoe12393 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe12393 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An entirely appropriate article about a notable element (actually a summary of several notable elements) of a fictional world. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This article needs improvement but not deletion. --Jmbranum (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2009 (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/Characters_and_wildlife_in_Avatar&oldid=1137694390"