Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Avatar: The Last Airbender characters: Difference between revisions

List of minor Avatar: The Last Airbender characters

List of minor Avatar: The Last Airbender characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is plot-only descriptions of non-notable characters in an animated television series. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your link above are the generic guidelines for notability; it would be better to refer to the specific notability guidelines for fiction; in particular, the section Articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria, which says, "Before proposing that an article is to be deleted, it is important to not just consider whether the existing article meets these inclusion criteria, but whether it's subject has the potential to do so. All Wikipedia articles are unfinished, and an article can be notable if sources exist but have not yet been used in the article."

While the article currently does have a few weaknesses, they are certainly remediable. It is not a question of how notable the series has become; while I do not watch it myself, I have not no doubt of its cultural value. The only real weakness of the article is that it is written in a in-universe style (for which I have just tagged). However, according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), this can be fixed pretty easily, for example "Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ('The author introduces', 'The story describes'). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material." So why not spend some time to fix the article, instead of spending all time talking about why it is not good enough as is?---CodeHydro 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it should be noted that the notability policy you are citing is not actually a policy yet, but a proposal, and a controversial one at that. Deletion policy states that an article meets criteria for deletion if it does not meet the appropriate notability guidelines. This article does not meet notability guidelines, as there are no significant secondary or tertiary sources independent of the subject itself. And while I agree that plot summary can be rewritten in an out of universe style to make it agree with WP:WAF, it is still plot summary, and Wikipedia is not a plot-only description of fiction works. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly reputable sources for these characters, namely in TV Episode Reviews from major entertainment outlets such as IGN.com. While I don't have the time to comb over every article, just a quick lookover of a few of thew reviews have already produced insightful tidbits about the characters King Bumi and Jet. Also, minor sources can be drawn upon to supplement what the major outlets don't cover, such as Den of Geek's little tidbits on Fang. While it may be timing consuming for one person to look at every review of every episode from multiple outlets to cite them all, it is not impossible if we give this article time and let it grow the Wikipedia way. In short, reliable sources exist, we just have to find them. As for what you said about plot summary, once again, it just needs a little rewrite, which can be done gradually. Plus the franchise is far from done and these characters have and will continue to make appearances in future games, films, and in the upcoming spin-off show ---CodeHydro 00:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I added information about the voice actors that played the characters for some of them. If this alone is done for the rest of the characters, then we have already done most of the job of keeping the article from sounding like in-universe characters are real. ---CodeHydro 01:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. These characters are not notable, at all. The most I can find in those reviews about these minor characters are single sentence descriptions of essentially what they did in their one or two episode appearances, which is just plot summary. In fact, the only significant piece of outside information I found was that tidbit on Jet you added, since the author actually criticized Jet's character from the real world perspective, saying he was just sending a bad influence out to the viewers. For the characters to be notable, they must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". While a character does not need to be the main topic of an source, little tidbits, such as the two sentence thing on Fang, do not count as significant coverage. Furthermore, in-universe style is not my reasoning for deletion. If it was, there wouldn't be any Avatar articles left. In fact, even the main article has some in-universe style. (However, just adding their voices does not make it out of universe.) And on another note, future appearances does not make them notable now. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. These characters appear in more than one episode. While you may only get a sentence or two about them in each episode review, were you to draw from reviews of every episode from every outlet, you would have plenty of information about them. Moreover, this list is incomplete and should contain at least four times the number of recurring characters; and it was a lot longer until I purged it from non-creative commons material, as described in the discussion page.

As for your concerns about notability, I would agree were the individual minor characters on their own page. Nonetheless, the fact that they are listed together in aggregate on this page makes their collective notability more than sufficient. Is that not the point of merging? Remember, the subject isn't "Jet" or "King Bumi," but "recurring minor characters." —CodeHydro 14:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, and that is indeed the point of merging articles, but "recurring minor characters" are not notable. The name itself pretty much implies that. Regardless of how many characters there are in this list, and how many episodes each appeared in, the article is still entirely plot summary, and the characters are all too insignificant to have any outside information about them. And remember by outside information I do not mean episode reviews that describe the characters personality, but actual significant coverage that relates to the real world. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, while there may be not enough grounding in the real world yet, there are definitely ways to do it reliably. For example, we could provide information about what episodes those characters have made appearances in. We could note appropriately if they have appeared in the film or the games or book; this kind of information is available from third party databases of casts and credits. That kind of information in conjunction with the voiced by stuff is sufficient to ground it in the real world. This kind of article is really helpful for those who follow the series but have missed episodes that introduced the minor character previously. The only reason this information is not there already as of now is because I'm busy with several other articles and life. As a side note, I know that if I were to do Cultural studies research on Avatar, I would utilize such a list (having used Wikipedia as a starting point for such academic research numerous times in the past).—CodeHydro 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that because "there [is] not enough grounding in the real world yet", the article is not notable. It has nothing to do with reliability or verifiability, something that is more important when deciding the content of the article rather than its very existence. Furthermore, what episodes the characters appeared in and who voiced them does not count as significant coverage independent of the source itself, even though it does indeed ground it in the real world. Furthermore, something tells me if you were doing a cultural study on Avatar that you would watch the actual series, and your first reference would probably be the main Avatar article and the list of episodes, rather than a list of minor characters. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not a reason to delete articles. According to the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, there are only four actual Wikipedia rules: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Notability is just a way to guarantee verifiability. In fact, the guideline you cite for notability is just that--a guideline, not a rule. In fact, the deletion guide specifically states that "such guidelines cannot supersede the requirements of the above policies." I have already made sure the article does not violate copyrights. The information is completely verifiable. Neutral point of view doesn't apply since this is a non-controversial fictional universe. There is perhaps some original research, but those parts can be deleted or cited in isolation. In short, you have no justification to delete the whole article. —CodeHydro 20:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what policy you are reading, but notability is indeed a reason to delete articles. In fact, it is probably the most commonly used basis for deletion. You linked to the guide to deletion article, but I recommend you read Wikipedia's deletion policy, where "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is explicitly listed as a reason for deletion. Furthermore, I acknowledge the guideline I linked to is indeed a guideline, but if you take a look, all notability policies are guidelines, and there is a reason why. Notability is not a clear cut quality for a topic, and we cannot write official policy that determines if something is notable or not. That is the very reason we have AfD at all, because there is no absolute policy on what is notable and what should be deleted. However, just because it is a guideline does not mean it has no standing in this debate. I suggest you look at WP:GUIDELINES and WP:PGE. Besides, even if we were to ignore WP:GNG, which is a guideline, this article still violates WP:NOT, which is a policy. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? It just goes to show that Twinkle can mess up sometimes. Sorry about that. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. —CodeHydro 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect rather than delete to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#Major recurring characters where applicable. Not counting the ref size, the main list is not too long to cover more characters. Discussion should take place on the talk page for what characters to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. I think it should probably be merged with little less plot summary. And sources should probably be the best way to decide who goes on there. I already explained to Parent5446 that it shoud be more like List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters minor character section. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I did a test edit, putting this on List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters and this is how it looks. I got to admit this is how not you should entirely do it. Defianetly the alphetical order thing. But I think it still can work out somehow. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The notability guidelines are just guidelines. As long as this article satisfies the three core rules (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and does not break Wikipedia:Copyrights then it is fine. I disagree about the merging because of the length, though granted the entries for some of the minor characters are overly bloated. —CodeHydro 20:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As a note, the list has gotten a lot longer. I've added every character that has made at least 3 appearances within the franchise. The list would double if I included every character that appeared twice, but I'm not that motivated!—CodeHydro 21:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Merge into List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge notability is a basis for deletion and this list has a lot of inappropriate sources (IMDB, forums, self-published sources). But will support merge for the sake of building a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters per WP:FANCRUFT. Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is NOT a complete exposition of all possible details. Minor fictional characters do not require their own list. SnottyWong ^communicate 18:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters as per nom and above comments. Also per WP:PLOT Maashatra11 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)