- Private series characters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
None of the arguments for keeping this page address the fact that notability has not been established once in the two years since its creation. The main arguments given were that the page is in accordance with Summary Style, which does not change the fact that its content has been in violation of numerous policies for two years (WP:NOR, WP:PLOT), and has shown no sign of improvement during that time. This is merely a page where fans of the novels come to edit in what's stored in their memories. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. One commenter states that being in need of clean-up is not grounds for deletion, but I'd think that a lack of established notability for over two years is. James26 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the consensus at the afd was that as this article has been spun out from the main Private (novel series) article (for length reasons) it was not required to demonstrate notability independent of that topic. It was explicitly stated that while the plot summary style, amoungst other issues, meant that the article was in need of cleanup, this was not reason to delete it. In other words the arguments made in the nomination were considered and rejected. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having re-reviewed the comments, I don't notice the argument you mention in your first sentence becoming a "consensus." I see one editor (Ed321) possibly alluding to your argument, but not stating so explicitly. If the article can't establish that the characters are notable apart from the book series, then there should be no separate page for them. For example, the book character Blair Waldorf, of the novel series Gossip Girl, has received coverage in The New Yorker (among other publications), which is cited as a source in her article. None of these Private series characters demonstrate any such independent notability. Respectfully, this was hardly "considered" in the nomination. -- James26 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The delete arguments were grounded in policy, but the keep arguments were bare assertions. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse It certainly needs cleaning up, but I don't see how that could have been closed as delete. Hobit (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the primary issue is that it's not notable and shouldn't exist for cleaning up in the first place. I believe I created it in order to move an overabundance of original research out of the main article, which a persistent editor kept including. Looking back, this was a mistake; I should've just tagged its material as OR when it was in the main article. There have been no signs of it establishing notability in two years. That's more than enough time for it to be deleted. -- James26 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD didn't agree. I personally think that character lists are a good idea for longer series but that one needs a lot of work... Hobit (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The keep !voters towards the end of the AfD were obviously well aware of the reasons advanced for deleting the article and considered the article didn't warrant deletion. However, (a) I agree with all of the nominator's concerns; and (b) think that stubbifying the article to what can be verified is appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain- As the only delete voter other than the nominator, I obviously feel this "article" has no place on Wikipedia. But can I honestly say that the closing admin acted against consensus? I don't know. The question is whether consensus based upon weak arguments ungrounded in policy, as all the keep votes were, can be considered proper consensus at all. Probably the best thing to do is to take to the "article" with a big cruft-scraping tool and remove everything that's not verifiable, or is editors' opinions and editorializing- ie. 95% of the "article". Reyk YO! 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There was agreement at the afd that this sort of combination article is the way to handle to problem of character articles. And there is general consensus that character lists are appropriate. James, you said "the article can't establish that the characters are notable apart from the book series, then there should be no separate page for them" -- this would be true with respect to individual character pages, though it is disputed whether the GNG is the only way to show it , but this is a combination article, and not every thing mentioned in an article need be notable. WP:N does not apply to the contents of articles, just articles. . DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, which is a matter of semantics because the end result is the same. Like James and Reyk, I personally feel that arguments to delete were stronger, particularly because they were rooted in core Wikipedia policy. However, while AfD is not a vote...The relevant guideline is WP:PNSD, which is actually murkier than one might expect on the subject: "Polling forms an integral part of several processes, e.g. WP:AFD; in other processes, e.g. article editing, polls are generally not used. In both cases, consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process." This suggests that while the strength of arguments presented is the top priority, the closing admin should not override the majority unless the minority's reasoning is especially strong. WP:CONS implies that consensus cannot be truly reached if a majority of participants in a discussion strongly rejects a minority's arguments. Also, per WP:IAR, Wikipedia policies are not firm and can be ignored in specific cases if the community elects to do so. My conclusion, therefore, is that the participants in this discussion leaned towards rejecting the policy-based arguments for deletion in favor of reworking the article. However, consensus would have required a stronger agreement among the discussion's participants, and I don't think that was achieved here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a fair reading of the debate actually and wouldn't object to an overturn to NC. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to "no consensus". If, as appears to be the case here, policies are ignored and an article on a topic without secondary sources is kept, at least make it clear that is what happened. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
