Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (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. Consensus is that these lists are redundant to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, which provides an appropriate level of coverage in view of the lack of secondary sources about the characters at issue. Sandstein 07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters

)

Let's put it this way: There has been many mentions of the usefulness of this article, and whether or not it should exist, so I figured nominating it for deletion would attract some attention, since deletion is basically what these discussions are about. Here is the problem: This is an article that devotes three or more paragraphs to secondary characters in a TV Show, some of which have only appeared once or twice. These characters are already described in List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, and do not deserve pages upon pages of useless information about them. In addition, this is literally the ONLY "major secondary characters" article in existence. Every other TV show article has one list of characters and sometimes separate articles for the main characters. The list is non-notable, is completely in-universe, and is sure to have a little bit of POV in there too. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Duplicated information of barely-there characters. Cruftwagon departing, all abbooorrreed... Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, duplicates information found on main list- JIP | Talk 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Mai, Ty Lee, Roku, Ozai, Zhao, and Suki are very, very important characters in the story arch. What's with all of the Avatar article hating these days anyway? (12 May 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.15.170 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the time has come that the numerous Avatar articles condense into only a few. The reason is because a lot of the information is useless. In fact, when it comes to characters, most television series only have one article for characters, while Avatar has three. The only articles that other shows have that Avatar does not are the episode articles, and that is because other shows have published production information for each episode, where Avatar does not. If the show's creators had some more interviews and gave us some more info, then we might be able to expand. For now, though, we must cleanup the excess articles and get rid of the pages of useless plot summaries and speculation. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Main list already has this. asenine ^{say what?} 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - redundant to existing list and no mergeable content. Collectonian (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the
list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep on the grounds that it doesn't appear to be much different than the article that was kept by consensus during the last AFD 6 months ago, and that an article like this is preferable to having separate articles on each character. The fact this is a clear spin-off of another article is irrelevant, and since we're not supposed to use
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as an argument for keeping, it follows that the opposite OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST is likewise not a good rationale. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Just so you know, OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST is not the rationale for deletion, it is just a point I made (if it seems otherwise, I apologize). The rationale for deletion is that most of the information does not comply with
WP:WAF, two very important policies for this article. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - NOTE TO ADMIN: User:23skidoo said on my talk page that he will not be looking over this AfD again, and that he will not change his opinion in any way. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per
Tally-ho! 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, but for that statement from WP:Lists to apply, it has to be, as you said, "discriminate". This article pages upon pages of indiscriminate character summaries. There is a point when the summary is not put on this article, but then it is just dumped onto the other article I nominated. In addition, I would think that
WP:PLOT would take precedence over WP:Lists (WP:PLOT is a policy and WP:Lists is a guideline). This article has almost no secondary sources at all (let alone reliable). If you could find me good, informational secondary reliable sources that can significantly change this article from plot summary to out-of-universe, be my guest. But since there very few sources that are out there for even the protagonists of this TV Series, I highly doubt you will get very far. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It is discriminate in the sense that it is a list on certain kinds of characters from a specific franchise. As for plot, well, that's just a matter of adding additional sources to balance things out, but not a reason for deletion. Best, --
Tally-ho! 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

So you are telling me that if there are no secondary reliable sources for an article, then we should keep it anyway. — Parent5446 ⁽t n e l) 02:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's no magazines that don't have articles that discuss these characters. Check through here, but also look at video game and anime publications. Sincerely, --
Tally-ho! 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, if you consider sites like avatar-manga.com or absoluteanime.com reliable sources, then you have something. Unfortunately, I highly doubt those could be considered reliable. — Parent5446 ⁽t n e l) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary duplication of information from the existing list cited in the nom. Eusebeus (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I say trim both this page, and the secondary page, and then merge the two. Which was our intention, but it kind of fell apart. Rau's Speak Page 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, perhaps quickly summarizing this information and incorporating it into another Avatar:... article. This is clearly a violation of
WP:GAMETRIVIA by going into vivid detail about unencyclopedic fiction about a few game characters. One tell-tale sign is that almost all the references come from transcripts of the subject matter itself. That information can be used to fill in the gaps in an otherwise notable article, but cannot alone establish notability. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I previously trusted you enough to believe that you read articles before you voted on their deletion. --Kiz o r 09:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was unnecessary. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 12:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say it was harsh, but necessary. In-depth discussion of it would be irrelevant to the topic at hand, though, so drop me a line of my talk page if you want to do so. --Kiz o r 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I am, theoretically, a big fan of blanket nominations because they are the best tool to remove stuff like this that clearly doesn't belong on 'pedia. They sometimes, however, make swift deletion impossible when they fail. For the sake of speeding this process up, delete all per
WP:FICT. User:Krator (t c) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The article cannot fail WP:GAMETRIVIA, because it concerns characters from a franchise that is NOT solely a game. Moreover, it can't really fail WP:FICT, because that shortcut outright states at its top: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".". Best, --
Tally-ho! 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, I would be pretty much ready to bang my head on a wall if somebody used WP:FICT as a source. Hopefully consensus will be established soon and AfDs like these can pass smoother. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not the "major secondary" and "recurring" articles are excessive, the large and complex cast of characters in this - character-centric - work looks like it could not be even adequately represented in the simple list. Something more is necessary for our coverage. But by all means, clean up if you wish. --Kiz o r 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you do not get the point. It is made clear in
WP:V that an article MUST have reliable third-party sources. The characters in this article do not have these sources. In fact, not even the main characters have that many sourcing. If the creators had more interviews where they discussed these characters, then there would be sources, but there are not. This whole article is literally plot summaries. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 11:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, here's my comment: First off, it is not entirely true that they are just plot summaries. It is also possible to at least start rectifying the whole no third party sources thing. There are a few interviews that come to mind. But I suppose an even more thorough trimming is in order until the decision to delete the page is probably made. I started it but never finished. Got busy, I guess. Some examples of possible third party sources that could be used are for at least some stuff relating to the Major Secondary Characters (but more the Main Characters and show, I'll admit) would be:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Not sure if this counts for much, if at all, but that's what a small amount of digging found me. I say that if this page is deleted, then a small amount of detail should be added on the character list page such as: "Long Feng was the head of Ba Sing Se's Dai Li force. He frequently antagonized the group during their stay in Ba Sing Se by preventing them from speaking to the king or rescuing Appa, as well as killing Jet. He eventually makes a deal with Azula that causes the take over of Ba Sing Se and at this point surrenders to her and loses control of the Dai Li." Not as short as I would like, but better than the current page. Any thoughts? SkepticBanner (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the last four sources are from ASN, which has been deemed unreliable. The 3rd link has one mention on the cabbage merchant, but it is short. I did not have time to look fully over the sixth link, but I think there are only a few mentions of any secondary characters. As for the rest: nothing. Unless I missed something, in total there are only two sources from the links you gave, one containing only a mention of one secondary character and the other only might contain information useful for the article. As you can see, any attempts to find sources are in vain. There are no secondary sources. I spent months looking for sources for the Aang article. Even though Aang was a primary protagonist, the article still did not have enough info to have a stable structure. (If you look, the article is a bit on the short side.) When you move from protagonist of the show to secondary characters that appear in five episodes at most, there is literally absolutely nothing. And I do not exaggerate. I will even put it in bold and italics: There are NO SECONDARY RELIABLE SOURCES that could expand this article to a decent size WITHOUT filling it with useless plot summaries.Sorry if that seems uncivil, but there really is nothing. If somebody could prove me wrong, please do. But I highly doubt anybody will find anything. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I do agree that small descriptions of each character should be added to the main list. I think that was how it was originally until these articles were created. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I agree with you, it would be good if you supplied a reason (even a simple "per above" would be better than nothing). — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Krator. If kept, a severe trimming of plot content is needed.
talk) 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Assuming the citations are valid sources, then I believe they satisfy the basic conditions for notability. The nominator's other reasons appear to boil down to "I don't like it". The lack of other articles about major secondary characters seems irrelevant; the existence of similar pages isn't allowed for arguments to retain an article, so why should they be considered for favoring a deletion? If the length is a problem, then the article can be trimmed and merged.—RJH (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said is true EXCEPT the "citations are valid sources" part. All of the citations are valid, but they are not considered all-purpose
WP:SYNTH specifically). — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

When was ASN deemed unreliable? And yes, you seemed very uncivil. SkepticBanner (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave up with arguing for ASN. I have heard argument like: "Its a fansite", "Since it does not respect US copyright, how could it be considered reliable", etc. Personally, what I think they are trying to say is that the source fails
WP:V in the following way: It says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." But there is a footnote that says, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability." What I think they are trying to argue is that there has been nothing to establish the creator and publisher's reliability, and therefore the source itself is unreliable. Personally, I sort of agree. ASN has not been known to be reliable because they have not proven so (there is no reason for them to be reliable, they are a fansite, etc.). In fact, the owners of the website do not even give use their full names. We know very little, if anything at all, about the people who create and publish the site, and that is why the source is not considered reliable. Take a reliable source as an example, such as the NY Times. We know exactly who the creator and publisher of the work is and that they have both been known to be reliable, as well as knowing the material itself to be reliable (being a newspaper and all). Do you see where I am going with this? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

While I'm pretty much positive this doesn't matter, does it make a difference that the creators recommended it in the Nick magazine? Yes, I do see where you are going with this. Also, the NY times has become less and less reliable in my eyes because of it being blatantly wrong in some stuff. SkepticBanner (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a source of where the creators recommended it, maybe we could consider it. As for the NY Times, I have noticed that too. Of course, I was just using it as an example. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 11:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep combination lists like this are the best way to do it. Otherwise we'll be inundated with articles on each of them individually. These are a good compromise. DGG (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody even evaluating the article. There are no sources for any of the information on the page other than the show. The only possibility other than deletion is to merge it into the main list. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 11:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - per Krator, Collectonian and above. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO to Deletion: These characters have contributed a lot to the series and deserve their own separate page. The deletion of this page will cause information gaps in the other articles, and it is better to have this page for further references. I insist that this page be preserved.76.24.145.157 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of independent, reliable sources -> fails notability -> should be deleted. Wikipedia is a work in progress; a deleted article can be rewritten and recreated if more material is found later. Graevemoore (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that once deleted, some see any article of the same name as a recreation and theyn attempt to speedy delete as recreated deleted material. Wikipedia is indeed a work in progress and accordingly we can leave articles in mainspace so that editors can continue to come along and improve them rather than have to keep starting over. At least this way, editors have a base from which to work. Sincerely, --
  Tally-ho! 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - But they should start over. Articles should be structured around independent sources. If any are ever found, then they can be used to formulate a better article. Graevemoore (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They can start over by being bold and not eliminating editors' public contribution histories. Sincerely, --
      Tally-ho! 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Comment - Nobody seems to be reading through the discussion before making comments. (By this, I mean people who have made no attempt to argue their decision with relation to the current objections, such as the IP address two comments up.) — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of accounts actually do that, i.e. just vote and don't discuss. I have seen many "per nom" style votes in AfDs sometimes multiple ones in under a minute, i.e. so fast that there's no conceivable way those "voting" could have actually reads all those AfDs under discussion, looked for sources, and checked over the articles in question. AfD is incredibly frustrating. Best, --
  Tally-ho! 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - *sigh* Well, that is another discussion for another place at another time... — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectonian and Graevemoore. They have stated all points that I would make, so there is no need for me to formulate my own version of the same opinion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their arguments have been effectively refuted, however. Sincerely, --
  Tally-ho! 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Now, that's just unproductive. You disagree, that doesn't automatically make you right. The same is true for me, but I have not proclaimed you the loser of our arguments, simply that I disagree. Graevemoore (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per so and so votes are unproductive as they don't add anything to a discussion. If those count for anything, then so should the fact that all the people who edited the article in good faith most therefore also believe it passes our policies and should be kept even if they don't post here. Sincerely, --
      Tally-ho! 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - That's a different discussion. I disagree there, as well, but AfD isn't the place to hash that out. Graevemoore (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Stop harassing users that utilize this argument. The closing administrator determines its value, not you, and most of the time, they simply confirm that a certain view has more support. Arbitrarily declaring it refuted isn't conducive towards civil discussion either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nor is making assumptions of bad faith or inaccurate assessments of editors' comments and reasons for commenting. Attempting to encourage real discussion rather than just repetitive votes is how we reach real consensus. Sincerely, --
        Tally-ho! 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Um...claiming that someone's argument was "refuted" is arbitrary and bad faith. Your definition of "real" discussion is also arbitrary. Many editors hold the same opinions. They don't have to rephrase the state opinion if they don't want to. I never see you complain that people comment "per Le Grand" or to the same effect. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I hope that the many nice editors who agree with me also elaborate on their reasonings and help to find sources. Just think of how many articles we'd be improving or how easier it would be if all of us actually did work together to find sources or at least focused on sourcing and imporving those articles we do individually care about. In any event, in discussions, editors hold each other's arguments to account, just as surely as anyone is welcome to criticize my arguments and engage me in a manner that produces as mutually agrreable of an outcome as is possible. Please do distract from the disucssions by focusing on the editors rather than the arguments. Sincerely, --
        Tally-ho! 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Engaging someone in argument is fine, but it's the content of the argument I'm commenting on, not the fact you argued. You're getting away from the fact that you asserted that their arguments were arbitrarily "refuted," which you haven't substantiated, and is a bit hypocritical, considering that you wish for a sublime collaborative environment where everyone works together, which is indeed fantastic, but ultimately unrealistic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And as much as I hate to interfere, this is still an AfD, not a centralized discussion. This is really not the place to argue this, and I do not care what rationale you may have; it is simply not the place or time. I'll have everybody know that while you think voting may be "evil" (which it is to some extent), it is one of the closest things we can get to consensus. If somebody agrees with another party, let them say Delete as per Whatever. It just means they agree with somebody's argument, refuted or not. In addition, this article has been crying for sources for more than half a year. I can almost guarantee you that there is absolutely nothing out there. You can look if you want but I can almost confirm that by the end of this AfD, you are not going to have much. As a closing statement, let's remain civil (if I get out of hand feel free to tell me). BTW Sephiroth, even though Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's comment was slightly in bad faith (controversial statement, let's not argue it), the comment you made back could be considered uncivil. Remember we are discussing the deletion of two Avatar articles and not much else. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Getting back to the article in question, it still passes our list policies by being discriminate (concerns characters from a specific franchise) and notable (major secondary charcters) that appear in a variety of media. The article has a rather profound interest for our readers and editors ("List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_major_secondary_characters has been viewed 64368 times in 200804"), is verifiable, and is actively being worked in. I see no reason to doubt that the article isn't being improved or that it won't continue to be improved. Now in terms of sources, what about video game magazines, magazines that concern Nickelodeon shows, or trading card magazines? Frequently in video game magazines, which I do have subscriptions to, I see whole articles on specific characters. I have added references from these published magazines that do not always have online versions of the articles to many articles on Wikipedia, some of which did indeed exist for months without adequate citations, but then I came along and added them. It's not out of the question that even my back issues have sources that could be added here, but to be fair, for a volunteer project, it would be unrealistic to expect me or anyone to drop everything and go through magazine after magazine in so brief a time. What I see in this case is clear potential. I do not see hopelesslness or any other serious issue that would outright require deletion. Sincerely, --
        Tally-ho! 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        I am not even going to continue to explain how redundant your argument is. I am telling you that I have searched all over the Internet as well as almost every magazine I could get my hand on. I, along with multiple other users (I'm sure Rau J has looked around too), have spent months looking for sources and found NOTHING. As for your claims, the article is not verifiable. The references section only references to the show and to one outside website. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 11:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent5446, I found where the site is endorsed: [12]. Is it my imagination or is nobody actually discussing the deletion anymore? My argument rests above. If I have anything new to add, I might get around to doing so. SkepticBanner (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid users will still have their buts and ifs about this source either way. Don't concern youself though. There is not much on ASN for this article or even the main Avatar article itself. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - "Major secondary characters" is a very elaborate way of saying there is no notability or encyclopedic value. If there is no information on the characters creation or fan or critical reaction, then it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2008 (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.