Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malus Darkblade (2nd 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malus Darkblade[edit]

Fictional character that shows no evidence of notability. Please note that the Black Library is a part of Games Workshop. None of the "References" here are independent of the fictional publishing house, which is a requirement under WP:NOTE. Mintrick (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion it is a good idea to flag concerns on the article (like the need for sources, etc.). The character is the star of a number of books and comic books and I'd be surprised if there aren't any interviews about character creation, development of story ideas, etc. or reviews. Granted the article needs quite a bit of work but have their been attempts to find sources? (Emperor (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I did, in fact, take a look to see if anything popped up. There was nothing beyond fansites/forum posts and Games Workshop affiliates. Mintrick (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fictional character which plays a significant part in multiple novels and games. Dream Focus 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does any of that relate to WP:NOTE? Mintrick (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they changed the guidelines against this week, without alerting the general public. Note: any change done in secret by a small number of people, without an announcement for the millions of wikipedia users to know it was going on, isn't valid as far as I'm concerned. The suggested guidelines have been ignored in the past, and articles kept, do to ignore all rules and wp:common sense winning out the consensus. I'm going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)/Original and the fact that there are thousands of articles dedicated to characters from major works of fiction, which under the new guidelines would have to be erased. Dream Focus 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should go by a page that says, right up top, that it's no longer relevant, and ignore all rules to follow your perspective exactly? That's an interesting take. Guidelines codify the "general consensus" of Wikipedia. They can be treated with the occasional exception, but this is nothing of the kind. You're proposing a systematic divergence from a guideline, which isn't an exception, but a change. If you think that way, try and change the guideline, don't ignore it. I think you'll find people have tried to codify just this exception before, but the community has rejected it. Mintrick (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't general consensus of all of wikipedia, but instead of a small number of people around at the time. And should we erase Steel_Brightblade, Palin_Majere, Raistlin, Caramon, Tika, and vast numbers of others? The character is notable because they are found in multiple works. Dream Focus 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the community has affirmed notability again and again. There are always dissenters, but the consensus remains. Once more, I will say that appearances have nothing to do with notability. Your assertion that they do is absurd. All the characters you listed (with the possible exception of Raistlin himself) should probably be merged to a single Dragonlance characters article. Never mind that what you're saying is classic violation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mintrick (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community has affirmed the old rules for years now. But, on April 9th, someone managed to change the guideline. [1] No consensus was formed, other than with under a dozen people who were around at the time to notice. The guidelines can not possibly reflect consensus with so few people participating. Hopefully it'll get changed back soon, and thus avoid this debate altogether in the future. I still say Keep based on wp:common sense, since under the changed guideline you'd have to erase almost every single character article there is. Dream Focus 10:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you're referring to did not change the guideline, it's someone proposing a new version. The general notability guideline, which is what I've shown to be applicable here, has been opened to much wider debate, yet remained intact. Mintrick (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restructured the article so that it focuses on the series of comics and novels, in which the character is merely the titular character. The novels and comics may be notable as a group, and the "Character" and "Magical items" sections still need to be trimmed or axed for putting too much WP:UNDUE weight on in-universe elements (sometimes mixed with original research). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There don't appear to be any secondary sources here. AniMate^talk 23:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTLAW The guidelines are suggestions, not policies. Everything is kept by consensus of whoever is around at the time to comment, not on the guidelines. Does this article hurt anything? Does it make the wikipedia better, more complete, with something that would be of interest to some people? Dream Focus 01:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're citing something irrelevant. This article doesn't live up to the spirit of notability, it flies in its face. There is not a single independent, reliable source used in this article. The guidelines are rules, and there should only be exceptions when there's a good reason. You're not saying that an exception should be granted for any reason whatsoever, you're saying the guideline is flawed and should be systematically ignored. That is tantamount to saying that the general consensus of Wikipedia (which is, make no mistake, in support of notability) should be ignored in favor of your own personal preferences. Mintrick (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's citing what is most relevent... the true spirit behind the Pillars. It's kind of hard to dismiss the core principes... specially as each and every guideline (subordinant to policy) specifically and pointedly advises "best used with common sense and the occasional exception"... specially when the result serves to improv wiki's utility to the reader. If common sense was not expected to be used, or if the occasional exception were not allowed, that caveat would not head every guideline. Wiki is full of common sense exceptions, for it's not about "us"... its about those who peruse these pages... even in the face of that ever-changing bastion of popularity and hype currently called WP:N... a "guideline" that has itself been the subject of dispute and contention ever since written... one that has seen change and mutation on a continuing basis for years... and has uncountable hundreds of thousands of edits to its text, content, and meaning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and the true spirit behind the five pillars is that the consensus regarding notability as essential should be ignored for all fictional characters, despite the fact that it's been reaffirmed over and over again? IAR does not mean that you can simply ignore established consensus and do exactly what you want. Other people have different visions of what Wikipedia should be, and in the realm of notability, the consensus in favor has withstood the test of time. I can't believe this is still difficult to understand. Exceptions are exceptional. They have good reasons. These keep votes are neither, they are a systematic attempt to ignore notability on a case-by-case basis, instead of abiding by general consensus. This is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. Mintrick (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IAR actually can be used to ignore guidelines if the result improves wikipedia's utitility and usefullness to readership, and as long as one strictly follows the core policies. And he is correct in that WP:N is not a policy nor Law... simply an often-changing guideline that acts as just that... a "guide". The ultimate spirit of wiki is to serve the readers, not the editors. We have to be able to step off our high horses once in a while and ask ourselves "does this act to increase a reader's understanding of a subject?" If it does, THAT is the exception.
HOWEVER, since the parent subject is notable, and since the spin-off has its own established notability (as seen by the numerous books), there really is no conflict with WP:N and is in complete compliance with WP:V. It's not as if we were discussing some very minor character. Malus Darkblade is THE main character of his own spin-off series of books and there are numerous precedents on Wikipedia for inclusion of articles on major characters from a "universe". Not being offered as Other Stuff Exists, but solely as examples of existing and established precedent... Hawkeye Pierce, Radar O'Reilly,Hot Lips Houlihan, Adrian Monk, Archie Bunker, "Tim The Tool Man" Taylor, Al Borland, and many, many others... Being discussed as a MAIN character in context with his universe, is allowed and encouraged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a common misconception about notability. Licensed works are not independent, and don't count for notability. No quantity of such books indicate notability. Show me one single place in an active guideline where that is true. As for precedent, there are plenty of other characters that have been deleted or merged. IAR doesn't mean that you can just ignore rules to serve your own ends, or even the assumed ends of some other nebulous group you've presumed the right to speak for. Mintrick (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no misconceptions and I do not make assumptions... so I would appreciate you not presuming that I speak for anyone but myself. The various books meet WP:BOOKS. The subject of those books is allowed an article... else we'd have 7 seperate book articles and someone would be proposing a merge to create exactly what we have now. That other articles failed and were merged or deleted is a WP:OSE argument. Each must be considered on its own merits. And I will continue to believe that wiki exists to serve the readers and not the editors. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is this character notable?" "Well, because he's in all these books!" "Well, why are those books notable?" "..." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources establish independent notability for this fictional character. Then redirect to the warhammer thingamajig.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a character, a comic series, and a novel trilogy. Can anyone make an argument that any one of them is even passingly notable? This is a definite merge candidate if so, with something like Black Library being a good target. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. One of those things would have to be proven notable. I did a Google search for "The Daemon's Curse" OR "Bloodstorm" OR "Reaper of Souls" OR "Warpsword" OR "Lord of Ruin" AND "bestseller" and found Bloodstorm is listed as a bestseller in one published magazine. I'll focus on searching for it, and see if its notable enough to make an article about. Dream Focus 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it isn't Blood Storm, an unrelated bestseller novel by Colin Forbes? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google shows more promising hits. Locus magazine list the book on their bestseller's list. They have books from different companies and authors, so it seems legitimate. Only counts science fiction and fantasy novels of course. So that is one book so far the character has been in, which would count as notable. Dream Focus 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm not sure what factual claim we could get from that. "This character appeared in a book that was the #5 bestseller of gaming-related book adaptations for a month in 2009"? :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=Malus+Darkblade Some of the books mentioning him have what appear to be fairly high sales ratings. Not sure how their ranking system works though. Dream Focus 21:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

googling his name in quotation marks gets 21400 hits. Seems to be a well talked about character among fans of that sort of thing. Dream Focus 21:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zilch in terms of significant coverage in secondary sourcing to meet WP:NOTE. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this satisfies the GNG. Eusebeus (talk) 23:43, 26 April 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.