Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ponder Stibbons

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 20:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ponder Stibbons

Ponder Stibbons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of Discworld through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character TTN (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to List of Discworld characters (per WP:FICT). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Mgm. McWomble (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not delete he is an important character and needs coverage somewhere. Where is the OR? It is all directly from the books or companions. The same goes for most of the articles in the discworld series.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. What Beligaronia said. The books are not original research. Lots42 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Ponder Stibbons and Harry Potter have similarities" and "The creation of this device borrows heavily from the real world splitting of the atom" is original research. In any case the article is full of unnecessary plot details and there is no evidence of notability independent of the books. McWomble (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Author has commented on similarity of Ponder Stibbon and harry potter. Commenting on supposed similarity of artwork he said "Ponder Stibbons was indeed first drawn in 1996. I, of course, used a time machine to 'get the idea' of Unseen University from Hogwarts; I don't know what Paul used in this case. Obviously he must have used something." Can't find ref for thaumic/nuclear reactor similarity but seems to be a very clear parody. Pratchett even set the thing up in a squash court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beligaronia (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Important character in series of landmark importance. Will be discussed in all the reviews. The rules for notability refer to the work in general, and appropriate major characters should get treatment in individual articles as the material best indicates. Given the complexity of the series, articles on the characters are a good ay to bring the information together. The sourcing for this material will be from the primary sources, as appropriatate for plot and character--though there actually isn't much discussion of plot in this particular article. . Other aspects of the series mcuh be discussed, and will be in other components of the group of articles. This series in particular is noteworthy because of the complexity of the setting, and the setting is expressed in terms of the contributions of characters like this, who are thus a major part of the notability. Some aspects of the article do not seem well thought out, but that can be dealt with by editing. The nominations seem to take no account of the special characteristics of the work being discussed, neither its overall importance, nor the relative importance of different elements. Not all science fiction is identical. DGG (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Mgm. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Major character in several books of an extremely important fictional series. JulesH (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. And the reliable sources supporting notability independent of the series are.....? McWomble (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Are irrelevant, seeing as this is an article forming part of a larger article in Wikipedia:Summary style on Discworld characters, so per WP:FICTION only the larger article needs notability established. This should be relatively easy. Some random links that may suffice: [1] [2] [3] ... JulesH (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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.