Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Garner

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. One cannot merge if the destination article doesn't exist, but I would be happy to userfy upon request so the article can be rewritten as a list. Regarding other members of the category, they must be listed for AfD separately as they were not part of this nomination. —Darkwind (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Garner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Known Space characters. Article needs to be created, obviously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an extensive body of critical work concerning Niven's writings; he has been a leading SF writer for nearly fifty years. The nominator has made no significant effort to assess the subject's notability, and the flimsy boilerplate rationale they advance is unconvincing and unsupported by rational analysis. It is evident that the nominator is ignoring WP:BEFORE and engaging in inappropriate fait accompli behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age doesn't implicitly mean there is available coverage, and while I'm sure the novels can probably be covered quite well, simply asserting that such information exists for this specific character without providing any just because of a problem with my nomination helps nothing. I'm focusing on fictional topics, so there is little chance for much variation in my rational. You may have a problem with that, but I would ask that you instead focus on the status of the article. TTN (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

given that you are listing things for deletion by acident the evidence suggests that your level of care is approximately nill.Geni (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or that emulator articles all look the same, so having multiple ones open at once in different tabs made it easy to do the wrong one. TTN (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with over 10K deletions I beg to differ.Geni (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Known Space characters or delete. As far as I can recall, Garner isn't the main character in any of Niven's works. We should also consider deleting other denizens of Category:Known Space characters such as Nick Sohl, Alice Jordan, Peter Nordbo and Tyra Nordbo. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete article currently has zero sources and a search of google books [1] does not provide much possibility that WP:GNG can be met.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator hadn't been notified. I've just done so (even though s/he hasn't edited since May 2012). -- Trevj (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2013 (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.