Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zartan (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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 because of the large support for keeping the article, particularly in light of the improvements that happened during the course of the AFD debate. Of the two supporters for merging the first occurred early in the debate before improvements, and the second was more a request to trim then a merge. With the changes, it appears that even the nominator supports keeping. (non-admin closure) Monty845 23:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zartan

AfDs for this article:
Zartan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is sourced to the subject matter in a offline cite to comic books - Which is odd. Over detailed, fancruft. Written in universe with no reliable third party sources. One source which is a fansite was deemed unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters. There are so many unsourced claims and bad choice of wording here. As with many of these characters the WP for Fictional characters were shocked at the HUNDREDS of unreferenced pages GI Joe had. A big AFD was discussed but the WP GI Joe team said they would merge some. However this is one of the surviving lot. These editors use forums, youtube videos and blogspot to cite these articles, so bare that in mind if you think it should be merged as the lists for these characters are supporting such links and trying to say they are fine.. Rain the 1 BAM 23:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable character in all aspects of G.I. Joe media. There ARE a lot of G.I. Joe character articles that need to be merged, but this is not one of them. It only needs to be properly sourced, regarding the character's appearances in animation, comics, toys and movies. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply There are no sources that demonstrate this character's notability. Just because he was in G.I. Joe doesn't
      automatically make him notable. If you think he's notable, you're going to have to be the one who finds the sources and proves it (or someone else who decides to do it, of course), because no one can prove that there aren't sources. Otherwise we'd all end up with editors having to search every single book and website made by mankind so that they could delete an article. Harry Blue5 (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
See
no effort to prove his notability yet. Source #7 and #11 are two reliable sources book cites so far. You never know when there can be more. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It says in
WP:JNN "Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability"", which is exactly what I said. Keep in mind, those two sources were added after I made this post. Still, I think some more sources might be useful before the character is proven beyond doubt to be notable. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
When I linked
WP:JNN I wasn't really directing to you. It is to for whoever states that he is notable or not notable without a valid reason. ;)Jhenderson 777 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. Zartan is notable enough for even MTV to care: [1]
  2. Also the statement that: "A big AFD was discussed but the WP GI Joe team said they would merge some. However this is one of the surviving lot." smacks of
    WP:NOEFFORT, which we've seen on more than one occasion in relation to the Joe articles, not just this one. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - so what's the deal with the "first" AfD nomination here? It's a bit misleading, because it was created all of two minutes before the "second" nomination, and it makes it look like Zartan's been through AfD more than once, which can be prejudicial. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has third party sources, notable character featured in a variety of media, I'm pretty sure he's going to be the main villain in the movie sequel. ScienceApe (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Atleast something good came of this and it has had a little work done top it and some sources added.Rain the 1 BAM 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True there is a lot of google results and sources. But see

WP:SOURCESEARCH. Jhenderson 777 21:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think those are problems. I read the sources I added and all seem pretty legitimate, and the nominator for this deletion should have had the forethought to do that first before making a bad nomination.
Mathewignash (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I acknowledge that you added sources. Kudos for that. If this AFD happened you probably wouldn't have noticed to do that. AFD's are sometimes helpful for those reasons. They aren't always a bad thing. Jhenderson 777 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree respectfully. It has enough sources (at least five) + enough information to be a seperate article for it to be
split so I think it should stand alone. And it has certainly enough sources to definitely not think of delete. Jhenderson 777 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I definitely agree that this shouldn't be outright deleted, however, I think the article could use some reworking to better show its notability that the sources provide. And a trim. A great big trim. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems ridiculous that this one should even come up for AFD. I know, I know, same old tired refrain, "it doesn't have enough sources, so delete it". Then I say, "but it's a popular character, so I'm sure the sources exist somewhere", and someone will reply with "then prove it". Well, that's all I've got for you at the moment, and if you can't take it on faith then I've got nothing for you, but I am sure there are more sources out there, and a merge for a character this important does not make sense. For those crying that this is "just another character in the franchise" and the like, I'd say that while Zartan would not be in the top five G.I. Joe characters in terms of notability, and depending on whom you ask he may or may not be in the top ten, but I doubt many would leave him off of their top 25 list. BOZ (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Importance in series is not a way of finding out how notable a character is. And, y'know, the majority of popular series don't have 25 articles on their character. That's a very rare occuruance. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, there is no set limit to only like the "top 10" characters in any series being notable. Notable is notable, whether there are articles on 1 or 50 other notable characters in the same series.
    Mathewignash (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also what you Mathewignash and your inclusionist ilk seem to forget is notability is
WP:VERIFY

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne: well, it seems to me that your deletionist ilk are basically
WP:IDONTKNOWIT on this article. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
LOL, you created an article called Porn Wikileaks and you expect us to take you seriously? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does

WP:ITEXISTS so therefore an article should be made regardless if the article is well sourced or even reliably sourced. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

LOL, it has to do with your credibility - you're arguing notability here, and yet to create rubbish like that? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Porn Wikileaks article has independent third person sources the subject matter I choose to edit is irrelevant to this current debate. If you feel the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia you are free to AFD that article just as the nominator (wrongly in my opinion believed this article should not have existed.) You are only throwing insults because you have nothing else to contribute to the main article on whether it should stay for the record I believe it should be kept because it has independent sources to demonstrate ts notability. Not some abitrary self appointed standard of whether a character is notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you notice that Dwanyewest simply falls to name calling rather than addressing my statement? There is no numerical limit on the number of characters from a fictional series that can become notable. We don't have to pick a top 10 if more characters have notability. This is a true statement, and no ammount of name calling or subject changing will alter that.
Mathewignash (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
And neither do you get to pick a top 10 which automatically have notability. This is a true statement, and no ammount of name calling or subject changing will alter that. If you think it's notable, then you've got to
WP:NOTABILITY. (NOTE: It has to be notable outside of the G.I. Joe universe). I'm fairly sure this could be proven to be notable, but I can't find any sources proving it. Harry Blue5 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Lets get it right, When it was nominated it was an article based soley on Comic book ciations, self/primary based sources. The situation has changed, which to me is a good thing. This AFD was not a waste of time as an editor who actually adds sourced third party sources added. This editor Dwayne article is perfectly fine too, using other stuff to make a point is not valid Jake. Someone saved this article by proving it's notability once and for all, no Yojoe and myuselessknowledge refs.Rain the 1 BAM 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, if you are going to discriminate against the nobility of "fancruft", please do your homework first, and only nominate articles that deserve to be nominated. Also, consider placing the tags {{
Refimprove}} at the top of the article, instead of nominating it for deletion. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Rain:
  1. from your comment above it seems to me that your whole point of this AfD was to get us hopping on it, which I believe is offside per
    WP:POINT
    .
  2. The AfD process is not unlike a tribunal in many ways - it's absolutely correct to bring other people's work into the argument on the basis that their "testimony" has no credibility if they themselves are not a credible "witness". You yourself have used my edits and comments in your diatribes against the Joe articles, so why is it OK for you and not for me? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, knock this off. AFD's are not supposed to be a place where we complain if the AFD was necessary or not. And definitely judging some editor by what article he created is uncalled for too. Even mentioning that article if it has nothing to do with this article is almost just as bad as saying
other stuff exists. Jhenderson 777 17:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Readily sourceable, clearly notable based on sources available.
    T
    18:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Was in major motion picture, other movies, cartoons, comics, action figures...soooo much media. 02:04, 6 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zartan_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138709001"