Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toa
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 Redirect to Characters and groups in Bionicle#Toa, and move the Toa (disambiguation) page to Toa. Black Kite 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Toa
Article has been tagged for trivia, plot section larger than rest of article, original research, being written in-universe, being unencyclopedic, self published resources, having no secondary sources that meet WP:RS (only the blog of the original author, I believe) and probably a few others. What really matters is the fact that Toa is not notable outside the Bionicle universe, thus they have no place in their own article. Fails notability by itself. Pharmboy (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree that there are no sources to indicate individual notability. So, at this time, I support removal of the content either by deletion and subsequent recreation as a redirect, or only a redirect to Bionicle. My preference would be only a redirect, so as to leave history intact for editors who wish to merge neccesary content. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment and Keep/Merge I feel this article is notable enough for inclusion for its own article. Obviously it needs to be stripped for its OR, out of proportion in-universe writing style, and gather as many secondary sources as possible. If length becomes too short, we should consider merging back into the Bionicle article where it originated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment about what is/isn't notable In order to be notable outside it's own universe, it needs to be familiar and used outside of just bionicle/lego. That is the primary problem. The other issues can be fixed, the fact that it is ONLY an in universe subject, is fatal. As an example, C3P0 is notable outside the movie Star Wars because 1000 parodies of him have been done, hundreds of citations exist that are about him and him alone, and he has transended his existance as only a character within the movie. While interesting within its own universe, Toa doesn't come close to passing as notable outside of its singular domain. Unless references can be dug up that demonstrate that Toa is more than a Bionicle good guy and there is some other cultural or notable relevance to Toa, any other argument is moot. Pharmboy (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If by Lego you mean primarily Lego in universe/in merchandise mythos, then I completely agree with you. However, when I think of this article's subject I consider the commercials, the films, the comics, games that all increase awareness of the subject matter and its backstory in main stream society. Sources can be found on these, and similar topics to creat citations for this article, as long as the citation pertained to the plot, not the merchandise itself. Zidel333 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you can use commercials and merchandizing for a product as reliable sources. Sources have to be independent, otherwise anything that ran a bunch of commercials would be defacto 'notable'. I understand that those commercials and merchandizing may be part of an article, but not to prove notability. Pharmboy (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- If by Lego you mean primarily Lego in universe/in merchandise mythos, then I completely agree with you. However, when I think of this article's subject I consider the commercials, the films, the comics, games that all increase awareness of the subject matter and its backstory in main stream society. Sources can be found on these, and similar topics to creat citations for this article, as long as the citation pertained to the plot, not the merchandise itself. Zidel333 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment about what is/isn't notable In order to be notable outside it's own universe, it needs to be familiar and used outside of just bionicle/lego. That is the primary problem. The other issues can be fixed, the fact that it is ONLY an in universe subject, is fatal. As an example, C3P0 is notable outside the movie Star Wars because 1000 parodies of him have been done, hundreds of citations exist that are about him and him alone, and he has transended his existance as only a character within the movie. While interesting within its own universe, Toa doesn't come close to passing as notable outside of its singular domain. Unless references can be dug up that demonstrate that Toa is more than a Bionicle good guy and there is some other cultural or notable relevance to Toa, any other argument is moot. Pharmboy (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Whether notable or not, I would suggest that the page Toa would be most useful as a disambiguation page, and this should be moved to "Toa (Lego)" or something similar. The related acronym page also has quite a few possibilities. Bob talk 13:35, 5 February 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.
