Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (2nd nomination)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user gq38pi53aq (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 13 May 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:08, 13 May 2008 by Vanished user gq38pi53aq (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters

AfDs for this article:

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 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete both - Duplicated information of barely-there characters. Cruftwagon departing, all abbooorrreed... Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete, duplicates information found on main list- JIP | Talk 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

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 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Main list already has this. asenine 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete both - redundant to existing list and no mergeable content. Collectonian (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

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:PLOT or WP:WAF, two very important policies for this article. — Parent5446 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep all per Misplaced Pages:Lists (discriminate and verfiable list associated with notable franchise; title even says "major" in it). Plus, clear consensus to keep a few months ago and "cruft" is never a valid reason to delete anything. Also, consistent per Firt pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

That was unnecessary. — Parent5446 12:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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. --Kizor 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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 02:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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. --Kizor 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But you do not get the point. It is made clear in WP:PLOT and 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 11:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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:

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)

Categories: