Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character theory (media)

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. Favonian (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Character theory (media)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be some sort of synthesis, under a title which gets only a little ghit support, in terms of Propp's Narritive Theory. The article seems to mix ideas about characters in media, with "characters" encountered in online communities. There has in the article's history been a healthy dose of WP:COI, and there is a suspicion that the article exists, as much as anything, as a vehicle for non-notable views of a COI author. Valid content in this article is found, or has been moved, to appropriate articles; Propp to Actant, Bartle has its own article. Campbell et al to Online_community#Classification. In view of the dubious admixture of disparate concepts lumped together in this article, I recommend it be deleted. In view of the COI which has plagued the article, I recommend it be salted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree, once pruned of the obvious promotion there is nothing of substance left. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, almost all primary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the fence. If we delete this, we lose reference to the Campbell, Fletcher and Greenhill typography, as well as the Propp typography. I think both of those are good content, though I'm not sure either deserves their own article. But at the same time, they're typographies of different types of people, and they don't belong in an article together. The Campbell et al one could share space with the Bartle typography, but the Propp one is unique in that it refers to fictional characters. So I'm not sure what to do here. I'm open to having my mind made for me by good arguments here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Propp typography is at Vladimir_Propp#Characters and I put a Wikilink to that at Character_(arts)#Types_by_role, which is where categories of fictional characters should go. I put in Wikilinks to the main ones (Protagonist, etc.), all of which already have their own Wikipedia articles. Bartel is covered at Bartle taxonomy of player types. I'd like to read Fletcher, et. al.'s "Fight club: culture, conflict and everyday life amongst an online 'community", but it's paywalled.[1] It did, however, get a good review in The Guardian.[2]. So Fletcher, et. al., might be worth saving as a reference in some article on online behavior. John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I noted in the deletion rationale, above, MjolnirPants, Cambell, Fletcher et al has been preserved by moving it to Online community#Classification ... which is to say that all of the useful content in the article has been moved to more appropriate places on wikipedia. All that will be lost is the lead paragraph. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the responses to me (which address every concern I expressed), I'm now on board with Deleteing the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unneeded content fork now that all the content has been relocated elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As all useful info has been moved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not have a common topic, and the sources are misleading at best. Vladimir Propp's text was not about characters in fiction in general, it was about characters in folk tales. Richard Bartle's text was about the types of video game players. John Campbell, Gorden Fletcher, and Anita Greenhill's text was about the types of online communities users. They have nothing in common and are talking about "characters" in general. Dimadick (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The useful encyclopedic content has been incorporated into the other appropriate articles mentioned above. Thanks to the editors who did that work. This article has been the subject of a campaign of promotional and self-promotional editing going back many years. Whether the editors involved are one person or several is not relevant to this discussion. This article is their most prominent promotional target and therefore should be deleted, since there is no evidence that the topic is independently notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.