Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vamprah (Bionicle Character)

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 no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. There is clear consensus that this article does not assert stand-alone notability, but disagreement over whether that is best handled as a redirect or a merge into a new more general sub-article of Bionicle. A discussion of the merits of those approaches should probably take place in article talk space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vamprah (Bionicle Character)

Vamprah (Bionicle Character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and is just plot repetition from the characters appearances in Bionicle media and those articles character and plot sections. It is thus duplicative of those articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Bionicle - trivial media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete & Redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep appropriate break-out articles on characters are acceptable also, though in cases like this they should probably be merged. Propose a merge, not a deletion. DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that a "Characters of Bionicle" article would be notable either, so merge would probably not be appropriate either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The link you have given is no indication of real world notability, and is probably just a fan encyclopedia that is in universe and lacking any creation info. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, and start a merge discussion. I can't tell which articles this one is duplicative of. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and start merge description per DGG, Le Grand Roi, and Pixel. Wikipedia:Editing policy states, "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting: try to rephrase; correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content; move text within an article or to another article (existing or new); add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced; or request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag. Exceptions include: duplication or redundancy; irrelevancy; patent nonsense; copyright violations; or inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion)." Ursasapien (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability; no independent sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "reliable source" mentioned by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is a book written by the author of the Bionicle novels and comics. From the Greg Farshtey page: "He is currently employed as the Editor in Chief for the Community Education Direct division of the LEGO Company.". This is definitely not an independent source, and thus does not indicate any notability. Notability comes from other people, from other companies (or not affiliated with any company) writing about a subject: not a book written by an employee of the company that produces the toys. That the book itself is somewhat notable is irrelevant when it is not independent of the subject. Fram (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That doesn't matter. It nevertheless demonstrates that the subject is encyclopedic. There is definitely notability from other people as evidenced by the large number of Google hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said in another AfD debate, it is not a real encyclopedia but a work of fiction masqueraded as one. And Google hits are not part of our notability guideline... Fram (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It is a real specialized encyclopedia and per our First pillar, we are not just a general encyclopedia, but specialized encyclopedias as well. The sources in those google hits that show the character's inclusion in toys and publications demonstrates notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
          • It is a work of fiction. And the Google hits do not indicate notability: this is a toy character which also features in the accompanying books, written by the same author as the "encyclopedia". Google hits that show that, yes, it is a toy and so on only verify that it is real (which is not in dispute), not that it is notable. Please read our notability guidelinees again, because what you are saying is not covered by them. Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 March 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.