Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Willoughby Kipling: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:30, 15 August 2022 editJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,438 edits Willoughby Kipling: r← Previous edit Revision as of 01:38, 15 August 2022 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,438 edits Willoughby Kipling: +moreNext edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
::*All of them are basically useless in both producing content for the article and fulfilling GNG. It confirms the character does in fact exist in the show and gives an extraordinarily minor development tidbit that is already covered by primary sources in the "Publication history" section. ] (]) 00:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) ::*All of them are basically useless in both producing content for the article and fulfilling GNG. It confirms the character does in fact exist in the show and gives an extraordinarily minor development tidbit that is already covered by primary sources in the "Publication history" section. ] (]) 00:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
::**They (and I grant that the coverage is quite overlapping) cover the character, its development history, why is a John Constantine-substitute. You admit that an RS--four, even--cover the basics about the character, but then complain that there's no ''commentary''. GNG does not mention, let alone require, commentary. ] states we should cover "development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" In what we have here, we have development, significance, and influence, arguably design... and that's just from the first page of Google News search. Moreover, we are supposed to follow the weight and proportion of what's in the RS'es per ], so if RS'es cover plot and development without commentary, we would be UNDUE to demand commentary. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines around fictional elements before starting AfDs based on your own preferred criteria which do not appear therein. ] (]) 01:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC) ::**They (and I grant that the coverage is quite overlapping) cover the character, its development history, why is a John Constantine-substitute. You admit that an RS--four, even--cover the basics about the character, but then complain that there's no ''commentary''. GNG does not mention, let alone require, commentary. ] states we should cover "development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" In what we have here, we have development, significance, and influence, arguably design... and that's just from the first page of Google News search. Moreover, we are supposed to follow the weight and proportion of what's in the RS'es per ], so if RS'es cover plot and development without commentary, we would be UNDUE to demand commentary. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines around fictional elements before starting AfDs based on your own preferred criteria which do not appear therein. ] (]) 01:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Want more commentary? Fine. , , : three more unique RS'es commenting on the episode in which the character first appears. Satisfied? ] (]) 01:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:38, 15 August 2022

Willoughby Kipling

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Willoughby Kipling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic fails WP:GNG. Mentions in reliable sources appear to be limited to trivial mentions and pop culture fluff articles. TTN (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes, minor fluff that brings absolutely nothing to the table:
  • ScreenRant: Literally nothing but an overview of the character for the uninitiated, covering what already exists in the article. No usable commentary on the character.
  • Decider: Another minor introductory overview with basically nothing usable.
  • CBR: Same as the above
  • Cinemablend: Same as the above
  • All of them are basically useless in both producing content for the article and fulfilling GNG. It confirms the character does in fact exist in the show and gives an extraordinarily minor development tidbit that is already covered by primary sources in the "Publication history" section. TTN (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    • They (and I grant that the coverage is quite overlapping) cover the character, its development history, why is a John Constantine-substitute. You admit that an RS--four, even--cover the basics about the character, but then complain that there's no commentary. GNG does not mention, let alone require, commentary. WP:NOTPLOT states we should cover "development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" In what we have here, we have development, significance, and influence, arguably design... and that's just from the first page of Google News search. Moreover, we are supposed to follow the weight and proportion of what's in the RS'es per WP:DUE, so if RS'es cover plot and development without commentary, we would be UNDUE to demand commentary. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines around fictional elements before starting AfDs based on your own preferred criteria which do not appear therein. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Categories: