Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Ford

Add links
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 - I'm terminating this AfD because there is a unanimous chorus of two dozen keep votes, mostly speedy or strong, and this debate has dragged on for too long with no possibility of ending in deletion. - Richardcavell 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Ford

[edit]

Non-notable fictional character, of interest only to fans of Stargate Atlantis. Pan Dan 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I am nominating each of the other pages entirely devoted to a Stargate Atlantis character: Carson Beckett, Ronon Dex, Teyla Emmagan, Rodney McKay, John Sheppard (Stargate), and Elizabeth Weir (Stargate). Pan Dan 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What is the "snowball clause"? (2) Why are these characters notable? Wikipedia is not a repository of pop culture. Pan Dan 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did they become signers, it's pretty obvious your accoun is an SPA (deletion) you may also like to read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). (PS: Wikipedia:Snowball clause) thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have no idea what this means: "Since when did they become signers, it's pretty obvious your accoun is an SPA (deletion)." Please explain. Pan Dan 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Seems to me, looking at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), it would be appropriate to have brief descriptions of these characters on the Stargate Atlantis page. It is not appropriate to have full pages devoted to each character. Pan Dan 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1=Single Purpose Account, 2=Why "Short summaries"? There main characters which could not be summed up in a paragraph. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: SPA, I don't see why I need to defend myself, but if I must, go to my user page, and you will see I have made substantive edits to "Antonin Scalia," "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict," "Snow", and others. I am not a single-purpose user. Second, that the characters cannot be summed up in a paragraph doesn't mean they're notable. Pan Dan 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Care to show me whats not notable? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The show Stargate Atlantis is notable. The characters are non-notable, and the articles don't assert the notability of the characters. The articles are mainly plot summaries. Pan Dan 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plot lines assert character notability. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their depth and size is part of the problem. I could write a deep, long article about my dog, but it wouldn't be notable. Pan Dan 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course your dog wouldnt be notable. The fact there main characters in one of the biggest sci-fi shows on air at the moment makes them notable. End of. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the page you referred me to, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is very clear: "Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." The problem with the articles on Aiden Ford, et al, is that they are not encyclopedic treatments: they are plot summaries, which do not assert the notability of the characters. Pan Dan 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not? It is afterall a character biography. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call them plot summaries or character biographies, they're not encyclopedic, they're not notable, and they belong--in greatly shortened form--in the main article on Stargate Atlantis. Pan Dan 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to learn what isnt notable (A bio about you, your corner shop, a local unsigned band, et cetera (i can use fancy words as well )) and what is notable (major tv shows, major people, major characters, etc.) thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have tried to make excruciatingly clear, I believe it is appropriate to have an article devoted entirely to Stargate Atlantis--a major TV show. It is not appropriate to have an article devoted entirely to each major character on a major TV show. This is plain from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pan Dan 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then re-read it; "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A plot summary is not an encyclopedic treatment. Pan Dan 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I simply agree: keep. Cristan 11:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking the bait of name-calling, but the "fans of Stargate Atlantis," as I shall politely call them, have plenty of fora, I'm sure, elsewhere on the Internet. No need to clog up wikipedia with this stuff. Pan Dan 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with being a Sci-Fi nerd, we all have our little foibles. --RMHED 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do. And we all have places on the Internet to go to where we can enjoy our little foibles. Wikipedia is not such a place. Pan Dan 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your wrong there. Wikipedia is such a place for a major show like Stargate et cetera; But is not for a deletionist. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Them's fightin' words, Matt! But as I said, I am not a single-purpose user, which you can see by visiting my user page. Pan Dan 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to your comment that was not a personal attack: Yes, "Wikipedia is such a place for a major show like Stargate." But no, wikipedia is not a place for one page devoted to each Stargate character. Pan Dan 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is obviously going to be a Keep otherwise you can delete pretty much every other article on fictional TV characters, and that ain't gonna happen. So come on just Speedy Keep it and be done. --RMHED 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, one fictional TV character deletion at a time, and maybe we can clean the fancruft out of wikipedia. Pan Dan 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you could cdontribute and make the articles better without your fancruft you speak of? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, Matt, visit my user page, and you will see I have made many substantive contributions to wikipedia. Pan Dan 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's OR and uncited and thus you may not of been those IPs. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Matt, I can't prove those edits were mine. But they are. (Why would I go through the trouble to find those IP's and list them?) Anyway, you can see that as Pan Dan I've done substantive edits on Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. (Still don't know why I'm defending myself--'cause it's so easy, I guess.) Pan Dan 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS--I don't know what you meant by "OR". Please tell me b/c whatever charge that is I would love to defend myself from it. Pan Dan 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR means original reasearch. American Patriot 1776 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Major characters in a major television program. I believe their is sufficient content to allow for a separate page, keeping in mind that the article will grow as the seasons of the program move along. DrunkenSmurf 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My God, is wikipedia a log of plot summaries? Pan Dan 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For good or ill Wikipedia is what its contributors make it, Pan Dan it's best to reserve your fights for battles that you have a chance of winning. Just surrender and it won't hurt at all. --RMHED 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to save Western civilization here, RMHED, one step at a time  :) Pan Dan 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I think you're about 50 years too late, we're doomed, best to just invest your savings in a top grade bunker. --RMHED 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already done, RMHED. :) But seriously, re: your comment that "Wikipedia is what its contributors make it." Isn't wikipedia (1) an encyclopedia, and (2) not a democracy? Aren't the admins sensible enough to delete fancruft? Pan Dan 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was all decided long ago by the community that this is encyclopediac. Whether it is to you is your own business, and none of the community's collective concern. Or else thousands of such articles would be gone. Why on Earth is this so offensive to you? If you don't care for this part of the content, there's another 1,500,000 pages you can busy yourself on. rootology (T) 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not offensive to me, and it's not true that "I don't care for it." I find it unencyclopedic--plain and simple. Pan Dan 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Admins, like all humanity are a mixed bunch. I doubt any kind of consensus could ever be achieved on what defines fancruft, at least this article isn't about bloody Pokemon, that alone is a small blessing.--RMHED 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, most are major characters on a major series. Too much information to merge, and the show is ongoing. Individual pages are fine. Kuru talk 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Too much information to merge"? Exactly. The "information" on these pages is mostly plot summary. It's not encyclopedic. Pan Dan 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even trimming off the cruft would blow out the size of the main article. If you'd like to gain consensus to trim those articles down to reasonable size, then feel free. Work with those editors. I don't really see the need, though. Kuru talk 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The main article on the show is OK b/c the show itself is notable. Not so the characters. (2) Trimming these articles down to size would reduce them to 2 lines each, which should then be merged into the main article. Pan Dan 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You keep forgetting the "in my opinion" part. Most of those articles have a fairly large amount of viable content; random plot summarizations aside. I doubt that you'd be able to cull them down reliably by yourself, and I'm not seeing a great deal of willingness to work with the other editors in that project on your part. If you're proposing an "Othello Rule" for notability and maximum article size, please feel free to join in the policy section at the village pump, or set up at WP:FICT. Kuru talk 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They get their own articles when the material is encyclopedic. Think Othello. Think Milo Minderbinder. Even the article on Anakin Skywalker has merit. But the articles I've nominated are basically plot summaries with no encyclopedic value. Pan Dan 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you personally feel 1 writers work is more important then others does not mean we should delete the writers you feel are not important enough, I think the above "keeps" speak for the importance and relevance of these characters. I am not sure what led you to pick stargate, but fictional characters from notable programs are deemed important and encyclopedic here, if you feel the article needs to be cleaned up then you should put the appropriate tag not attempt to delete it. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the articles are mostly plot summaries. A tag is not appropriate b/c if all the non-encyclopedic material were removed, only a few lines would be left--which should be merged into the main article on Stargate Atlantis. I don't know anything about Anakin Skywalker, but the article on him is fine b/c it shows some depth and notability. But these articles that I've nominated are, again, mainly plot summaries. Pan Dan 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not arguing the subject is unencyclopedic then a tag is appropriate, it really doesnt matter because WP:SNOW anyway. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try as I might, I am not able to make sense out of the 1st part of your sentence. I am arguing that these articles are not encyclopedic, therefore tags are not appropriate. Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:FICT; all of these characters, given proper treatment (as they have been) would cause the Stargate: Atlantis article to become inappropriately long. As such, "[those] character[s] can be given a separate article[s]." Given the examples at WP:FICT, it seems rather simple that starring characters for a television show (those showcased in the opening credits, to include others) are not non-notable. Lastly, being of interest to only a select group of people in no way makes it prudent for deletion; excepting only a small percentage of articles — the majority of Wikipedia articles are only of interest to truncated groups of people. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point there. That these articles are only of interest to fans of the show, is not a good argument as to why they should be deleted. The articles' fan base is, rather, a diagnosis of the reason why, despite their lack of encyclopedic content, these articles can be found on wikipedia. And the lack of encyclopedic content is the reason why these characters should not be given separate articles. The material is mostly plot description; it should be truncated and merged into the main article. Pan Dan 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the policy, get the policy changed. Arguing it on AfD is not the appropriate venue and a waste of bytes and bandwidth. As for only of interest to fans of the show, do you have access to the access logs of Wikipedia, and the referals or search logs to see what people are looking up? Or is this some general bias vs. pop cultural items...? rootology (T) 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Do you fail to see the irony of calling this discussion a "waste of bytes and bandwidth"? (2) What is the appropriate venue?--not a rhetorical question, I really want to know. (3) I don't think I need to see access logs to know that nobody who has not seen the show, will ever, ever have occasion or desire to look up Aiden Ford. Pan Dan 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone not interested in complexity theory look up NC, for instance? Or why would anyone not interested in being a bad guy look up molotov cocktail? Or better yet - why would anyone who has nothing to hide look encyption up? 207.234.147.96 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it seems that your objection is about the quality of the articles as they stand now, not that the articles exist. With nigh on three years of content, there is substantial information that they would be over-sized to be in the SG:A article anyways. Instead of asking/expecting that the articles be deleted, merged, re-written, and then re-forked into their own articles; why not simply annotate the articles as being written in an unencyclopedic tone {{Inappropriate tone}}, express your concerns on the appropriate talk page, and perhaps take a hand in re-working the article to be better written. I still advicate keeping all listed articles, but would also support their bring appropriately tagged for needing work. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, the nominator apparently doesn't understand the scope of Wikipedia's coverage. Wikipedia isn't paper, there isn't a space shortage or a limit to the number of articles we can have. Bryan 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that wikipedia can, and should, cover much more than ordinary encyclopedias. I also understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Lengthy expositions of TV characters' exploits don't belong. Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your (extreme) minority opinion. rootology (T) 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are encyclipedias dedicated to nothing but lengthy expositions of TV characters' exploits. The Star Trek Encyclopedia springs to mind. Bryan 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These include good thorough articles. There is no reason to delete them. Kundor 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, main characters of successful TV show. Not fancruft! --Andromeda 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (A word from the nominator.) It would be an understatement to say I'm swimming against a tide here. But it seems to me self-evident that these articles do not give the characters the "encyclopedic treatment" required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) ("If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article"). These articles are each 2 lines of character description, and the rest is plot summary. That's not encyclopedic. That doesn't assert notability. It's rote description of plot. The solution: the 2 lines of character description should be merged into the main article on Stargate Atlantis, and the rest should be deleted. And, fans of the show, not to worry: I am as sure as I'm typing this that the material whose deletion I am calling for can be found on 10 other websites on the Internet within 2 seconds on google. Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Ill-advised nomination that is ignoring WP:FICT, or only selectively viewing it. Othello is OK, but not TV fiction? Better get rid of the Darth Vader, Frodo Baggins, and Jesus Christ articles whilst we're at it. Sheesh. rootology (T) 00:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, (sigh, defending myself once again) see my user page for evidence that I am a contributing member of wikipedia, not a troll. Way to assume good faith, rootology! Second, I have explained why the article on, say, Anakin Skywalker is fine, but the articles I nominated are not. The article on Anakin (and Darth, and Frodo--don't know why you include Jesus, he's a religious figure whether fictional or not) presents a compelling portrayal; the nominated articles are just plot descriptions. Third, my nomination is a straightforward application of WP:FICT, not a "selective viewing" of it. Pan Dan 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I revised my comment. Please see: Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. This article is valid, as this is one of the "main" characters of the show--all of them are. They were all opening credits characters, therefore they are "major" to the show itself, which is certainly notable (4,000,000 odd viewers, etc.). I was making use of hyperbole as well. rootology (T) 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: if you're unhappy with the content, work on that. AfDing them is a bad idea, as this will never pass for any show or film or novel like this. It's established by your peers that this content has merit on WP. rootology (T) 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also from WP:FICT: Noonien Soong is an example of a minor, but still notable, character in Star Trek: The Next Generation, who has sufficient content to sustain an independent article. Same for all the major characters of a television show. Per policy. rootology (T) 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pan Dan down here since the page is giving me trouble. Proper venue to discuss is the talk page at the FICT policy, not by mass afding. Your own words indicate you may have done this to make a point about fancruft as you see it--that's not allowed per WP:POINT. I'd advise you to take it up at the FICT talk page if you're not happy with how our rules work currently. rootology (T) 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to zerofaults, pd_THOR, and others, I should make it clear that what I think is unencyclopedic is the content, not the tone or organization. As I said somewhere above, lengthy descriptions of characters' exploits should be deemed patently unencyclopedic. That's why I feel outright deletion, not a tag, was appropriate. Pan Dan 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you then qualify Spock, Josiah Bartlet, Sharon Valerii, Danny Tanner, or Jim Brass under your same criteria for eventual deletion? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having just taken a quick look at all of these, I would say this: Spock has become part of the broader culture, and the article makes this point. I would definitely keep that. (Maybe in 10 years the same will properly be said of the nominees for deletion.) The article on Danny Tanner is a (somewhat) compelling analysis of the character--not just a summary of his actions on the show--so I would keep that. The Bartlet article is also a (somewhat) compelling portrayal--and, as the actions of Bartlet invite comparisons with real life, the article could potentially be expanded. Valerii and Brass--I would argue those do need to be deleted, as they are not compelling, nor do I see any potential for them to be expanded. Those articles are just a description of the characters' doings--like the present nominees for deletion. A description of the characters themselves could be summed up in 2 sentences, and are. So I would insert those 2 sentences into the main articles for the TV shows, and delete the rest. Pan Dan 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the nominator.
First, I admit that in my nomination I didn't present my argument for deletion as thoroughly as I should have. This is because I truly thought the deletion should not be controversial (despite some here who shamefully assumed bad faith). So let me just re-emphasize the main point in favor of deletion that has come out in discussion: The articles are summaries of the characters' exploits--i.e. plot summaries (except for 2 lines at the beginning which should be merged into the main article). Therefore the articles:
(1) violate WP:BIO because plot summaries don't assert notability of the characters,
(2) violate WP:BIO because of the 100 year test: "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?", and
(3) violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which says: "Plot summaries - Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer comprehensive, summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series."
Therefore these articles aren't encyclopedic treatments of the characters. So the articles also fail to satisfy WP:FICT--"If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article."
Second, there is no available source for "analysis, ...details on...achievement[], impact, or historical significance" per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, so there is no potential for the articles to be re-written or expanded to an encyclopedic treatment. This is why deletion, not tags, is appropriate.
Third, on fancruft: Even though these articles are obviously fancruft, that's not a good reason for them to be deleted. But the fact that these articles have a fan base is a diagnosis of the reason why, despite their lack of encyclopedic content, these articles can be found on WP.
Fourth, it is obvious that I've touched a nerve with some fans of Stargate. I understand what it must be like to have articles you've worked on very hard, and for a very long time, to be considered for deletion. I am truly sorry for that. But the fact remains that WP is not a place for fans of X to collect indiscriminate information about X. There are plenty of other places on the Internet for fanclubs.

Pan Dan 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of these points makes logical sense. Tobyk777 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And none of them seem valid. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that these articles are fancruft, but if they are then perhaps the definition of fancruft is too broad. Noneofyourbusiness 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In "Third,..." above, I explicitly admit that "fancruft" is not a good reason for requesting deletion. Pan Dan 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This character is absolutely notable and Pan Dan's entire comment about him only being notable to fans of SGA is rather offensive. There are millions of fans of the show. -- Voldemort 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) As in "Fourth...", above, I apologize to anyone I offended. It was a good faith nom, I thought this material unencyclopedic, and I stand by that. (2) I repeat my contention that summaries of characters' exploits are plot summaries which do not assert notability. (3) The fact that there are millions of fans of the show certainly explains why there is so much interest in putting and keeping this material on WP, and the fact that there are millions of fans justifies the article on Stargate Atlantis. But it doesn't justify the lengthy plot summaries whose deletion I am requesting, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7. Pan Dan 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. According to m-w.com, an encyclopedia is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". Per this definition, I think the The Star Trek Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia as are the entries it contains. And if they're encyclopedic in that context, then I think they're encyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia, which I see as an encyclopedia for every niche. And if Star Trek entries are encyclopedic how are Stargate entries any different?
See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7. Pan Dan 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, assume, for the moment, that your nomination for deletion succeeded and Stargate: Altantis only had one article. It'd then be expanded to such a point whereby editors would have little choice but to split it up into multiple articles. Soon, those articles would expand, and those articles, and so on and so forth, until you have what you have today. So even if what you were proposing did succeed, what's, really, the point? TerraFrost 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. But the point I am trying to make is that narratives of fictional characters' exploits, with no "real-world context and sourced analysis," per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7, shouldn't appear on WP at all. Pan Dan 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all Per above and so many, many more reasons. What's even more insane is that all of these are main characters, I could at least understand it if they were for some one episode random characters, but these ones are in over 20 episodes a piece! Konman72 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just think this nomination is funny. Out of about 25 voters, the nominator is the only one who thinks this is fancruft. Many of the voters have argued at length about why the nominator is wrong. Never before have I seen a AFD with such overwhelming resistance to the deletion. Usualy, even if there is consensus to keep there are at least one or two people who agree with the nominator. Here there is unanamous consensus. I'm just think that's kind of funny. Tobyk777 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the nominator hadn't heard of the Wikipedia: Snowball clause before nominating. Noneofyourbusiness 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To show you how clueless I really am, I'll say this: Even if I had heard of the Snowball Clause, I still would have made the nomination, b/c I didn't think it would even be controversial, and I certainly had no idea I would be 1 against 1 million. Pan Dan 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep

First they came for the Pokemon, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a 12-year old anime addict.

Then they came for the Stargate Atlantis characters, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a fan of bad science fiction (or whatever Pan Dan thinks SGA is).

Then they came for the articles on World War 2, and there were no editors left to speak up for it. 207.234.147.96 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh, 207.234.147.96 (I mean that). As to the serious point you are making, narratives of the exploits of WWII heroes are appropriate for WP. Narratives of the exploits of fictional characters are appropriate for fan websites, not WP. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information (no. 7), WP:BIO#Alternative_tests (100-year test), and WP:FICT, no. 1 (non-encyclopedic coverage doesn't get its own article). Pan Dan 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) As it states, the presence of a plot summary is not grounds for deletion. Even if these articles consisted only of plot summary, which they don't, it would not be grounds for deletion, only cleanup/revision.
2) These articles pass the 100 year test. Probably. The very nature of the test makes it hard to say with 100% certainty.
3) As it states, major characters get their own articles if proper treatment of them would cause the main article to become overlong.
In short, these three policies all say that we should keep the articles. Noneofyourbusiness 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your point #1, The "expansion and cleanup" required by no. 7 is not possible w/ these articles b/c it is not possible to give them "real-world context and sourced analysis" (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). By the way, I note that the explicitly stated "Plot summaries are not grounds for deletion" (paraphrasing) was added today--probably in good faith, but that does sort of change the meaning of the policy, and maybe sd be reverted (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=73506100&oldid=73428962). Pan Dan 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is fictional work, real-world context and sourced analysis is applied in an Out-of-universe perspective. Morphh 20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • notable to WikiProject: Stargate

I'm certainly no wiki expert or anything, but I would think that the existence of the apparently legitimate Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate is a major point to consider in the discussion of notability of these articles. Certainly they are an important component of that WikiProject?

68.166.244.74 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep all nominated articles per above. Central characters to a notable TV series. Chrisd87 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikiproject Stargate is a well organized, lagitamate wikiproject, with more than 40 members, 3 of which are admins. Among various other things, we are currently working to eleminate fancuft and to merge non-notbale articles into lists. Our project follows all policies and is just as lagitamate as any other, and more organized than most. Tobyk777 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately KEEP ALL as Elizabeth Weir is a charachter in stargate sg-1 and atlantis, and weir was the commander of the sgc at one point. The other charachters have similar reasons in my opinion - Stwalkerster 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to be written:

Articles to be expanded/improved:

--Tobyk777 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the nominator. If this were a chess game, now would be the time to say "I resign." I gave it my best shot. Now (after more than 40K!) I want to withdraw the nomination. I apologize for what is now clear to me was an ill-advised nom as rootology said, since it had zero chance of succeeding, although that was certainly not clear to me when I made the nom. In fact I thought it wd be so uncontroversial that I used PROD before someone removed it.

Now that the debate is over, I want first to concede what I think are the three best arguments against my nom:

1. Inertia. These articles are so extensive, and have been on WP for so long, and are even part of a Stargate portal (God save us all!), that to delete them now would be disruptive to the portal and unfair to a relatively small but very hard-working chunk of the WP community.

2. Precedent. I assume discussions like these have come up before, whether formally in deletion nominations, or informally on talk pages, or both. The fact that articles like these have survived for such a long time despite such discussions, is precedent-setting, I suppose.

3. Fairness. If these articles were yanked, it would not be fair that hundreds, if not thousands (if not tens of thousands?--God save us all!) of comparable articles would remain, like the article on Soong which rootology mentioned.

I still think my basic argument is right: that WP is not an appropriate place for articles like these, including the Soong article, and WP would have a much better reputation if it cracked down on them. The fact that these articles are 95% plot narratives and 5% character analyses attests to their lack of significance to the real world today, lack of any artistic, philosophical, or literary merit, and certain lack of significance to anybody at all 100 years from now. So it's obvious to me that they're unencyclopedic faddish fancruft.

Worse, I get the impression that allowing these articles makes the WP community sort of like a high school student body, in that both are divided into cliques devoted to fads, rather than a cohesive community devoted to the whole WP project/high school sports & academics. There is a clique devoted to Stargate, and a clique devoted to Pokemon, and a clique devoted to Survivor, and a clique devoted to Goth. Leaving high school aside, whether I'm right about the existence of cliques on WP or not, I'm probably right that Stargate et al are fads which will be forgotten 100 years from now. And it seems to me that at WP, the proponents of fad projects should take them off of WP and go elsewhere on the World Wide Web, which is pretty darn wide and would accommodate, and certainly already does accommodate, each one of these fads.

So again, I apologize for the nom. I also apologize for being blunt about what I called "fads," which may offend some people. Especially, I apologize for the rant you just read, because I know now (thanks rootology) that the appropriate place for that rant is in a discussion like the one at WP:FICT, not here. I just want to say, thanks to all of you who have contributed to this debate. Thanks especially to those of you who thoughtfully engaged me in some particulars of the debate, even though you could have just cited WP:SNOW and walked off. Y'all probably feel this debate was largely a waste of your time, and you may be right, but for me this has been an educational experience as I am new to the procedural part of WP (though I have been contributing substantively to WP for quite some time as described on User:Pan Dan, ahem, Matt and rootology). I have no hard feelings towards anybody here (yes, even you Matt, though next time a newcomer adopts a snowball-in-hell position, don't assume bad faith), although I understand if some of you have hard feelings towards me. Anyway, see you around WP! May the force be with you! or whatever.  :-)

Pan Dan 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will Stargate be forgotten a hundred years from now? Maybe so. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whether something will be notable a century from now is inherently unknowable, and thus not a criteria for determining whether it's notable now. Assuming that Wikipedia still exists in 2106, these articles will be deleted by then if they've ceased to be notable. Currently, however, they are notable. Oh, and Strong Keep. Redxiv 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you're way off base here. My argument that "Stargate will be forgotten 100 years from now" appeals to the 100-year test at WP:BIO#Alternative_tests. It has nothing to do with the policy Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant to this debate even if I am speculating about the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would be relevant to a nomination for deleting an article that speculates about the future, and I'm not even claiming that these articles speculate about the future. Pan Dan 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, put another way, Crystal Ball forbids articles from speculating about the future, whereas the 100-year test at WP:BIO#Alternative_tests invites debates about articles to speculate about the future. Pan Dan 03:56, 4 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aiden_Ford&oldid=1258239203"