Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original character (2nd nomination)

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. Xclamation point 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Original character

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Original character
• Articles for deletion/Original character (2nd nomination)

Original character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Aside from the fact that the article is comprised entirely of self-assertion and original research. The article is misleading as well, since it seems to be describing a "fan character". From my understanding, the term "original character" usually means a character in an adaptation (such as a film version of a novel) that was not in the original media or even a character introduced in a sequel to a previous work. Either way, the article is full of misleading information uncited assertions. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Per reasons stated above --LetsdrinkTea 16:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. T-95 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. twirligig_T to^the C 20:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, pure original research. Chardish (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete original research and grossly misleading. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- nothing but original research. How did last year's AfD get it so horribly wrong? Reyk _YO! 21:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per previous AFD. As pointed out in that AFD, there are plenty of available sources to fix this article. The concept of an original character in fan fiction is widely discussed in cultural studies and this article could easily be fixed by anyone with the relevant journal subscriptions to view these articles. Concerns about the article being misleading can be fixed by renaming as Original character (fan fiction) and creating a new article about the kind of original character the nominator mentions. WP:DELETION requires us to fix articles that can be fixed by editing rather than deleting them, and I see no reason why this article cannot be fixed. JulesH (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The article has been around since 2005 and it's never been improved. Certainly nobody fixed it after the last AfD. In fact it hasn't changed at all since then. "Keep because somebody might fix it somehow someday" is an extremely irresponsible way to vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yet it is the way policy requires us to approach such situations. See WP:IMPERFECT as well as WP:DELETION and WP:PRESERVE, all of which are policy pages. There are also numerous essays on this subject; see WP:NODEADLINE and WP:DEMOLISH for example. JulesH (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete based on JulesH's reasoning and the Google Scholar hits listed in the last Afd. The fact the article has not been improved is never a valid reason for deletion, Wikipedia is not on any deadline. Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Err... you presumably mean keep? JulesH (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found in last AFD. A Google Scholar search was done, and a paper called "Fanfiction Writing and the Construction of Space" which appeared to explore the "original character" concept was found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I just don't see the point of keep this article. Aside from the misleading use of the term "original character", there's not much written here that couldn't be covered in fan fiction since "fan characters" are just "original characters created by fans". Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That sounds like an argument to redirect. Perhaps the whole article can be boiled down to a sentence or two, plus the academic reference I referred to up above, within the article on fan fiction. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This article should really be called fan characters or original characters in fan fiction, since an "original character" in this context means the same as an "original character" in any other work of fiction based on preexisting sources. Regardless of what it's called, the article is about a subtopic of fan fiction, and the only way for its existence to be justified is for us to have too much notable and verifiable information about fan characters to be included in the fan fiction article. Google Scholar suggests this is actually a small topic in fanfic criticism, and regardless of its importance, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of it should start by adding to the fan fiction article. A sub-article could then be created when necessary. I can't see how this current collection of original research is going to be any help with improving Wikipedia; in fact, it may discourage the addition of briefer, sourced information to the main fan fiction article. EALacey (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Eusebeus (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator's objections can be solved by renaming this article as JulesH points out above. And "delete this article because no one has worked on it" is not a convincing argument. Sorry. -- llywrch (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (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.