Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters
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 Keep. Non-admin closure. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying to prevent inquiry in the future, the actual result of this nomination was withdrawn. I was new to AfD at the time, so I didn't know about this closing option. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entire article is in-universe. There are no references. However, the list of characters is to a notable book series. I'm nominating it for deletion in accordance with WP:FICT, but I may be wrong. Please give a consensus so I can learn. Thanks! -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lists are preferable to individual character articles, and notable fictional franchises are typically allotted one such list. Since these characters overlap between books and movie, neither is a good merge target. Primary sourcing to meet V can be easily established, and I suspect the major characters have received some RS coverage in reviews. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no references in the article. And primary sourcing would be the books themselves, obviously. In book reviews, they can be reliable, but they can not be. What doesn't make sense to me is why source anything that isn't factual in the first place? The entire article is fictional. One would usually consider WP:MOSFICT, and write the character list from a real-world perspective. Something that is very difficult to do. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What other character lists have you compared with? It sounds like you're looking at this in a vacuum, rather than seeing about how these sorts of problems have been handled in ohter instances? Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A worthy argument. I can't help but notice Lists of characters in a fictional work. If you notice, most of the articles there have no summaries about the character. They are just lists. However, a lot of them also do have summaries. I believe the best choice is to let this one sit close with the others. I'm closing this discussion. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What other character lists have you compared with? It sounds like you're looking at this in a vacuum, rather than seeing about how these sorts of problems have been handled in ohter instances? Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no references in the article. And primary sourcing would be the books themselves, obviously. In book reviews, they can be reliable, but they can not be. What doesn't make sense to me is why source anything that isn't factual in the first place? The entire article is fictional. One would usually consider WP:MOSFICT, and write the character list from a real-world perspective. Something that is very difficult to do. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (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.