Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merlin (Shrek)
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, with the option of merge if it is discussed properly with on the article talk page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merlin (Shrek)[edit]
- Merlin (Shrek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable character from a really bad movie. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Shrek. I'm not sure if the character from the movie warrants it's own article. however to the nom, please leave your opinion of the movie out of the nomination. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The movie is crap, and remember, Wikipedia is not censored. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's not censored, but there is such a thing as being WP:CIVIL. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...toward a movie? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL is tenuously possible as it may be construed as an attack on people who like the movie, but that's really not the issue. The real problem is that, as a deletion argument, it' a WP:NPOV violation. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality of the movie has nothing to do with whether or not this article should be deleted anyway. I don't know if this is a civility thing or not, but it sure isn't conducive to a spirit of collaboration. Rray (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the country I am from, the United States, we have something called "free speech", and it applies even if people don't like what you say, and I won't be censored because people like a crappy movie. Besides, it was at most an aside, and the notability issue is what we are addressing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite free speech, Wikipedia has many policies that limit what you should say on Wikipedia. Nobody is attempting to censor you. The problem is that you seemed to use the quality of the movie as a deletion rationale (your wording implies that this should be kept if it were a good movie). We welcome you to your opinion, but AfD is about the merits of the article, not of the subject. -- Masterzora (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it was just meant to be a side comment, as the thought of this character made all those bad memories of seeing the movie in the theatre come into my mind. But your right, the only issues is Notability, not my personal feelings on the movie. I love Shrek and like Shrek 2! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite free speech, Wikipedia has many policies that limit what you should say on Wikipedia. Nobody is attempting to censor you. The problem is that you seemed to use the quality of the movie as a deletion rationale (your wording implies that this should be kept if it were a good movie). We welcome you to your opinion, but AfD is about the merits of the article, not of the subject. -- Masterzora (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the country I am from, the United States, we have something called "free speech", and it applies even if people don't like what you say, and I won't be censored because people like a crappy movie. Besides, it was at most an aside, and the notability issue is what we are addressing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality of the movie has nothing to do with whether or not this article should be deleted anyway. I don't know if this is a civility thing or not, but it sure isn't conducive to a spirit of collaboration. Rray (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL is tenuously possible as it may be construed as an attack on people who like the movie, but that's really not the issue. The real problem is that, as a deletion argument, it' a WP:NPOV violation. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...toward a movie? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's not censored, but there is such a thing as being WP:CIVIL. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Wildthing61476. Also note that while bringing up WP:CIVIL is somewhat questionable in this case, a movie being really bad is not a reason for deletion (or is it? Let me know so I can nominate Lost in Translation :P). JuJube (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close Completely inappropriate nomination. You usually don't show your true bias when you nominate many articles for deletion on a certain subject, but you slipped up today for whatever reason. WP:IHATEIT is no excuse to nominate this, and this isn't cleanup either. This appears to be in bad faith, and brings all of your other concentrated nominations into question. Admins have already said you're doing a bangup job though. The rules may no longer apply to you, which is a shame. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No such thing is occurring; if you actually read the nomination, you would notice it says there is a lack of notability. Again, it is true I dislike Shrek 3, but I didn't nominate this article for that reason, nor have I done that with a host of other movies or fictional things I dislike because they don't have notability issues. This article either needs multiple reliable sources or should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's a whole navbox footer for Shrek character articles, and this one is part of it. It's usual for films to have separate articles on characters. This one fits quite well. I agree it can use some footnotes, but there's no hurry, people will provide them. Also, "really bad movie" that was written in the nomination is a personal opinion that has nothing to do with this at all. --Tikilounge (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being included in a "navbox" is not an assertion of notability, nor is saying that other character articles exist. This one must prove notability, and just saying it has some is not sufficient. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:16, 22 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.