Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toa (Bionicle) (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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toa (Bionicle)

)

Written totally in universe except for the intro and the controversy. section. Uses nothing but primary sources. Totally incomprehensible to anyone who is not a fan. Ridernyc (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the bionicle encylopedia a primary source? Citius Altius (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolastic who published the encycolopedia also publishes the Bionicle book series so yes, it's a primary source. [1] Ridernyc (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if one thinks the "in-universe" rule has general consensus, it is about totally in-universe articles, and even the nominator admits that this is not the case. This is actually a combination article about a great number of characters who probably do not really merit separate articles. I will at any rate not defend such separate articles, even if they are capable of some defense, but that's on the basis of assuming agreement in the practical compromise to accept combination articles. Any hope of compromise in fiction requires this. Otherwise we'll be fighting these for years and years. . It does need some trimming and rewriting for clarity, but I leave it to those who know the game to know what to trim. DGG (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "in-universe" problem can be fixed from primary sources, but it wouldn't help the lack of notability. The "controversy" section just says "toa is among the controversial names" and merely repeats material that belongs in the main article. Citius Altius (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section was tacked on the end of almost every Bionicle article when they were going through AFD 1-2 years ago. Ridernyc (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is fine, well written, with plenty of good content. And if you aren't a fan, why would you be reading more than the top part, which clearly explains what a Toa is right away? If that is all you wanted to know, as a non-fan, you'd pick that up right away. Dream Focus 11:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is how you justify its being incomprehensible to a non-fan? Citius Altius (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both preceding. IIRC is a summary from previous merged articles and has secondary references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only secondary references are a couple of trivial mentions which I added myself + the redundant, tacked-on "controversy" section. Citius Altius (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to List of Bionicle characters in the absence of any real sign of notability. Citius Altius (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2009 (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.