Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Blight

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 ; if you want a copy to merge, just ask. --Haemo 01:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Blight

Doctor Blight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional character per WP:FICT. Reliable secondary sources do not appear to exist. 350 ghits ("-wikipedia") from mostly random fansites and forums. Doctorfluffy 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Voiced by Meg Ryan and with respectable references like NYT and Cal Poly - seems good enough to me. I hate fiction is insufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  Per WP:FICT, "fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." Both of those links are only passing mentions; one has simply the name as an example of the show's villains and the other is briefly discussing the appearances of all female characters on the show, with no particular emphasis on Dr. Blight. I wouldn't classify either as "substantial coverage". Doctorfluffy 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  So we have No consensus. This seems normal for such topics. Colonel Warden 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  Well, hopefully more people will weigh in and offer their own conclusions, but I see it as follows. Under WP:FICT, a topic must receive direct coverage to be presumed notable - an article about a parent topic of a given topic does not necessarily indicate notability. Your sources are primarily about the show itself and clearly indicate that it's notable, but however have only limited mentions of Doctor Blight herself and as such do not qualify her for notability. There is a lot of precedent for various fictional universes. I don't really want to get into other stuff, but a good example is Harry Potter, which is generally considered a much more notable piece of culture than Captain Planet. Nearly every minor subject (characters, locations, etc) article has been condensed into more compact lists. Doctorfluffy 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• keep She's got an action figure and everything. Artw 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  I noticed that she has an action figure, but my intepretation of policy is that is deemed notable only if the merchandise is covered by reliable secondary sources. Toylines exist for nearly every fictional universe, but that doesn't mean that every character of those universes is notable. Doctorfluffy 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with Doctorfluffy. No reliable secondary sources are given. Small amounts of media coverage does not constitute notability. The Cal Poly paper is not a source. See WP:NOTE. Subdolous 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The New York Times reference is exteremly trivial, and the other article is even worse. Non notable. Crazysuit 02:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a CP article; significant adversary worthy of note within fictive world -- Simon Cursitor 13:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge (shorten and merge) to Captain Planet and the Planeteers. This character fails WP:FICT due to a lack of secondary sources with substantial coverage. Not every person place and thing in every fictional work needs its own article to recapitulate everything disclosed about it in the fictional work. Edison 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge per Edison Will ^(talk) 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not have significant coverage in multilple reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Without reliable secondary sources, there is no justification for this plot summary. --Gavin Collins 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."-- Masterzora 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:03, 5 November 2007 (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.