| Revision as of 04:26, 17 April 2009 editJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 editsm tidy← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:58, 17 April 2009 edit undoJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 edits +commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Merge to ]''': I ran the three synonyms through Google Scholar and Books in search of ]. The first has no hits, the second gives a link only to one of the novels in which she appears, the third returns hits for a different character in a novel by ]. A for the main name, minus overt Misplaced Pages mirror sites, also returns nothing in the way of ]. Therefore notability is not established and an independent article not merited. ] (]) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Merge to ]''': I ran the three synonyms through Google Scholar and Books in search of ]. The first has no hits, the second gives a link only to one of the novels in which she appears, the third returns hits for a different character in a novel by ]. A for the main name, minus overt Misplaced Pages mirror sites, also returns nothing in the way of ]. Therefore notability is not established and an independent article not merited. ] (]) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', and ''then'' discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. I'd support the merge, almost certainly, at the right place. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters, combination articles preserving content are the way to go. The only real problem is that the combination articles may then be deleted--as is currently being attempted at ], and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. ''']''' (]) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', and ''then'' discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. I'd support the merge, almost certainly, at the right place. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters, combination articles preserving content are the way to go. The only real problem is that the combination articles may then be deleted--as is currently being attempted at ], and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. ''']''' (]) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *: '''Comment''' — I reviewed many of the Honorverse articles a year ago and my attention was drawn back to these when someone took one of them to AfD earlier this week; it's likely whichever one I first commented on recently (I have a huge watchlist;). I certainly do feel that detailed coverage of some fictional characters is warranted — the ones ''other parties'' believe worth covering, not all of the ones wiki editors believe should be covered. That's the core idea of the concept of requiring reasonably detailed coverage by independent reliable sources to warrant the inclusion of an article. In the cases where pretty much no coverage exists, a mention in a list with about one sentence is all that seems appropriate; i.e. a merge is not appropriate either. When Misplaced Pages gets ahead of the independent reliable sources on coverage, we're implicitly serving to promote the material, which in this case, and others, is a commercial franchise.<br />As to the fact that a few potential merge targets are also at AfD; I believe it's a coincidence. I made 5 noms yesterday, all characters. There are dozens of leaf-node articles in this garden and others see this, too. Once editors see a few up, there is a natural tendency for them to recall other articles that they have concerns about and that will typically lead to organic growth of the range up for discussion. Cheers, ] 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' There is enough information to justify its own side article. You couldn't possible merge that much information, and the ] doesn't have summaries for the characters listed there, just their names, ranks, and whatnot. So you can't merge it, that ending up in this case being exactly the same as a delete(except the history of the article is preserved, and there is a redirect added. ]''' 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' There is enough information to justify its own side article. You couldn't possible merge that much information, and the ] doesn't have summaries for the characters listed there, just their names, ranks, and whatnot. So you can't merge it, that ending up in this case being exactly the same as a delete(except the history of the article is preserved, and there is a redirect added. ]''' 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' fictional character with insufficient independent coverage to sufficiently establish notabilty outside of the context of the work of fiction the character inhabits.] (]) 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' fictional character with insufficient independent coverage to sufficiently establish notabilty outside of the context of the work of fiction the character inhabits.] (]) 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:58, 17 April 2009
Elaine Komandorski
- Elaine Komandorski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe, plot summary; tagged over a year ago for clean-up and no resolution of concerns. Jack Merridew 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Honorverse characters: I ran the three synonyms through Google Scholar and Books in search of notability. The first has no hits, the second gives a link only to one of the novels in which she appears, the third returns hits for a different character in a novel by another author. A broader web search for the main name, minus overt Misplaced Pages mirror sites, also returns nothing in the way of reliable sources. Therefore notability is not established and an independent article not merited. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. I'd support the merge, almost certainly, at the right place. As Jules correctly says, if they're not important enough as separate characters, combination articles preserving content are the way to go. The only real problem is that the combination articles may then be deleted--as is currently being attempted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Treecat, and then the articles about the characters as a group, and all reduced to bare lists of names. I cannot tell if this string of nominations against characters and character groups in this fiction is a statement that the fiction as a whole in not important enough for detailed coverage (about which I have no real opinion), or whether no fiction at all should get detailed coverage. If the latter, its the attempt of a small group to wear down the opposition based on the stated view of the nominator that popular culture is not worth substantial coverage. DGG (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment — I reviewed many of the Honorverse articles a year ago and my attention was drawn back to these when someone took one of them to AfD earlier this week; it's likely whichever one I first commented on recently (I have a huge watchlist;). I certainly do feel that detailed coverage of some fictional characters is warranted — the ones other parties believe worth covering, not all of the ones wiki editors believe should be covered. That's the core idea of the concept of requiring reasonably detailed coverage by independent reliable sources to warrant the inclusion of an article. In the cases where pretty much no coverage exists, a mention in a list with about one sentence is all that seems appropriate; i.e. a merge is not appropriate either. When Misplaced Pages gets ahead of the independent reliable sources on coverage, we're implicitly serving to promote the material, which in this case, and others, is a commercial franchise.
As to the fact that a few potential merge targets are also at AfD; I believe it's a coincidence. I made 5 noms yesterday, all characters. There are dozens of leaf-node articles in this garden and others see this, too. Once editors see a few up, there is a natural tendency for them to recall other articles that they have concerns about and that will typically lead to organic growth of the range up for discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment — I reviewed many of the Honorverse articles a year ago and my attention was drawn back to these when someone took one of them to AfD earlier this week; it's likely whichever one I first commented on recently (I have a huge watchlist;). I certainly do feel that detailed coverage of some fictional characters is warranted — the ones other parties believe worth covering, not all of the ones wiki editors believe should be covered. That's the core idea of the concept of requiring reasonably detailed coverage by independent reliable sources to warrant the inclusion of an article. In the cases where pretty much no coverage exists, a mention in a list with about one sentence is all that seems appropriate; i.e. a merge is not appropriate either. When Misplaced Pages gets ahead of the independent reliable sources on coverage, we're implicitly serving to promote the material, which in this case, and others, is a commercial franchise.
- Keep There is enough information to justify its own side article. You couldn't possible merge that much information, and the List of Honorverse characters doesn't have summaries for the characters listed there, just their names, ranks, and whatnot. So you can't merge it, that ending up in this case being exactly the same as a delete(except the history of the article is preserved, and there is a redirect added. Dream Focus 17:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete fictional character with insufficient independent coverage to sufficiently establish notabilty outside of the context of the work of fiction the character inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete- I wholeheartedly endorse Gonzonoir's analysis of the sources. Reyk YO! 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)