Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leane Sharif
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 delete. no place to merge, if a list of characters article is created, then I'll undelete and merge Secret account 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leane Sharif[edit]
I am very doubtful about the notability of this fictional character (and of most or all of the same series's characters) and about the possibility of finding independent sources about it. So my first impulse was to prod it, or redirect it to The Wheel of Time. But I must admit that the sheer number of WoT-related articles, and a consideration for the work of the editors who wrote them, made me bring the question here, and ask for other editors' opinion. Goochelaar (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A merge proposal to collect most of the characters in Category:Wheel of Time characters into a (likely very long) List of Wheel of Time characters does seem to be in order. Per WP:FICT, that should be the second step, after searching for sources to support notability, with going to AfD only after those steps have been exhausted. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is not even one cite indicating real-world notability here, and no assertion of notability. Without that, there is no way to assume notability, and one has to conclude merge or delete. --Lquilter (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, according to WP:FICT and WP:AFD. First you also have to look for sources to confirm notability yourself. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, a google search turns up a lot of forums & fansites.[1] Google Scholar turned up ZERO hits,[2], and Google Books turned up only hits from the Robert Jordan books and what appears likely to be translations of the RJ books.[3] - So, instead of merely commenting, I can now confirm that I recommend deletion. (And so far as I know, neither WP:FICT nor WP:AFD require me to go looking for sources simply to comment on an AFD that someone else has raised. And certainly not if I'm recommending merge as an option. If I'm missing something do please point it out.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough -- and apologies for my inappropriately sharp comment. I was indeed treating you as if you had said that as nominator. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, a google search turns up a lot of forums & fansites.[1] Google Scholar turned up ZERO hits,[2], and Google Books turned up only hits from the Robert Jordan books and what appears likely to be translations of the RJ books.[3] - So, instead of merely commenting, I can now confirm that I recommend deletion. (And so far as I know, neither WP:FICT nor WP:AFD require me to go looking for sources simply to comment on an AFD that someone else has raised. And certainly not if I'm recommending merge as an option. If I'm missing something do please point it out.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, according to WP:FICT and WP:AFD. First you also have to look for sources to confirm notability yourself. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No hard feelings; we all do get a little testy sometimes. Thanks for the gracious apology. --Lquilter (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator, let me add that I had indeed Googled and Book-googled the subject too, and I should have said so. Of course, Google is not the be all and end all of possible sources, but I'll be rash and venture to say that I'd be very surprised if sources other than fan sites (and fanzines and the like) would emerge. Thanks to Quasirandom for pointing out some shortcomings in my nominations, which I confirm nevertheless. Goochelaar (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. I too would be surprised if independent notability for this character showed up. Merge is still preferable, as the notability of the characters as a whole, and more specifically of the Aes Sedai as a whole, can almost certainly be substantiated. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Realized I never got around to actually saying merge to List of Wheel of Time characters, and open discussion on doing the same to the less-notable members of the category. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to a suitable combination article. This is only a medium importance character in the series. DGG (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - minor characters in minor fictional works should not have their own pages. There are no 3rd party Reliable sources given and no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG et. al. Hobit (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Mergeto someting like List of Wheel of Time characters. Not much to merge though- this is only in-universe, no RL notability in the article at all. Greswik (talk) 20:11, 29 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.