- 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 merge to Lexx. Wanting to discuss a topic in more depth does not automatically make that topic notable. Having a standalone article requires real-world notability. Alternately, a List of characters article would also be acceptable, keeping WP:INUNIVERSE in mind. Mr. Z-man 20:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Kai (LEXX) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kai is one of the protagonists of the TV series Lexx. After three years of the article having notability concerns, I boldly redirected it to the main article, but I was quickly reverted. So, here we are. Kai has many fan pages and a few trivial mentions scattered throughout reliable sources, but Lexx never truly broke out of cult TV show territory. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as a reasonable breakout-for-length of the main article at Lexx. Breaking out characters is common, and this one requires some length. It would be reasonable to merge in the further breakouts Divine Assassin and Brunnen-G. JJL ( talk) 19:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to the main article/character list should one be created. Character lists can be spin-off articles, but single characters need to stand out on their own and do not inherit notability. Without anything to establish real world relevance, over ten paragraphs of plot information is not necessary. TTN ( talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge. To JJL's comment, while a breakout from an series article is reasonable, the first stop is nearly always a list of characters article, which is generally accepted as long as the main show is shown notable; the splitout of a single character requires that character to have out-of-universe notability (such as development or reception about the character). This would be a reasonable solution for Kai and any of the other characters listed at {{ Lexx}}. -- MASEM ( t) 01:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree- the main Lexx Article is way too long to consider merging this article in. On top of it all, this is the second time this vote has come up. The consensus was "keep" that time, too, for the same reasons. The idea of merging all the main and minor characters is going to create a list at least as long as the origional lexx page. Honestly, if it were possible to pare down the Lexx page more it might be wise to do so as it's pretty overgrown. Notability for all the major characters does exist, but people need to go in and establish it with links to various news articles and fan sites telling about development, fan reception and other things. Yes, it's arduous, but if multiple people add a little at a time it won't be so bad.
- As a side note, NinjaRobotPirate's redirects were done very suddenly with zero discussion on the main Lexx Talk page (to which Kai's article was redirected). In fact, he stuck redirects on every single character page without asking anyone at all or even attempting to hold a discussion. -- Lamoxlamae ( talk) 22:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - There's too much to try and combine smoothly (the movies/tv series is rather long-running by most standards). The article itself could use a bit of work and better citations, but I think that deletion on the grounds of notability is uncalled for. Human.v2.0 ( talk) 17:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- The information doesn't really matter unless the topic itself can establish notability. If it cannot, it needs to be pruned to a reasonable level in the main article or a list. The in-universe information needs to be a summary amount suitable to its level of notability. There should be no reason that it cannot be summed up in a few sentences (article) or a few paragraphs (list). If you're looking for over ten paragraphs of plot info without meeting WP:N, Wikia is more suitable. TTN ( talk) 18:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen your argument, you have tons of these nominations on a sliding scale of sensibility. Agree to disagree, but in this particular case I think you're on the wrong side of the line. Telling people "if you don't like it, go to a different website" is exceedingly inappropriate as well.
Human.v2.0 (
talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can be wrong if there is no assertion of notability. Failing to meet
WP:N means that an article cannot exist, and the management of
plot information is not a reason to keep it. Wikia is where fiction can freely be documented without having to worry about meeting encyclopedic standards, so someone looking to do that would find that more suitable. If the character can establish notability, providing some sources would clear any doubts.
TTN (
talk) 21:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I get where you're coming from, but you seem to be taking an overall dislike with "pop out" articles but have only (from what I've really seen, with a limited interest in scanning people's edit history) applied this to articles involving some aspect of fiction. While I agree with a good portion of these (the random sprawl of minor D&D elements, for example), it is also within wikipedia practices of have "list of characters" or individual character entries as the case may merit. I personally believe that in this case the situation merits; this is a main character of a long-running movie/tv series with good coverage and sources. You're verging on
I Don't Like It territory in regards to standing policy and AfD consensus on something that is not a black-and-white situation that you clearly have a specific opinion on.
Human.v2.0 (
talk) 21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lists of characters are the only ones given a free pass, but not even they are completely exempt. It is not common practice to allow for standalone character articles to exist only on in-universe info. Only those who show potential for improvement or those that have not been dealt with still exist. Policy agrees with that interpretation, and it would require ignoring a lot of the finer details to make a case otherwise. As for my own editing, I find dealing with fiction to be the most enjoyable, and it's hardly that I don't like it. That interpretation would require that I try to get articles that clearly establish notability deleted. If the character has "good coverage and sources", you should supply them. It's not like the article has to be instantly improved, and simply showing potential would be enough.
TTN (
talk) 21:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure the major reason most the Lexx character pages don't have full references and such is because it's a series which makes it a lot more difficult than working with a shorter work like a film. When dealing with a TV series giving good citations often requires that people go into transcripts of scripts and creator comments, find where it states something then put it up as a reference link to improve citation.There are 61 episodes in Lexx with each transcript being at least 10 pages long: over 600 pages of reading. Heaven help you if your memory is fuzzy on which episode that detail showed up in!
- This doesn't even include the time spent hopping along creators websites, doding defunct webpages, trying to make the wayback machine work and gleaning through fan sites to gather more information. It gets to be very involved and daunting and I can't blame people for being scared. In short, it's a not a case of "absence of evidence being evidence of absence", it's a case of mountains of work being mountains of work and people not wanting to spend 10+ hours per article making citations.
- On a side note, if anyone reading this would like to work with me on getting the main character pages up to snuff, contact me on my talk page. I can share some good jump-off points and we can work together to lighten the load. -- Lamoxlamae ( talk) 00:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lists of characters are the only ones given a free pass, but not even they are completely exempt. It is not common practice to allow for standalone character articles to exist only on in-universe info. Only those who show potential for improvement or those that have not been dealt with still exist. Policy agrees with that interpretation, and it would require ignoring a lot of the finer details to make a case otherwise. As for my own editing, I find dealing with fiction to be the most enjoyable, and it's hardly that I don't like it. That interpretation would require that I try to get articles that clearly establish notability deleted. If the character has "good coverage and sources", you should supply them. It's not like the article has to be instantly improved, and simply showing potential would be enough.
TTN (
talk) 21:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I get where you're coming from, but you seem to be taking an overall dislike with "pop out" articles but have only (from what I've really seen, with a limited interest in scanning people's edit history) applied this to articles involving some aspect of fiction. While I agree with a good portion of these (the random sprawl of minor D&D elements, for example), it is also within wikipedia practices of have "list of characters" or individual character entries as the case may merit. I personally believe that in this case the situation merits; this is a main character of a long-running movie/tv series with good coverage and sources. You're verging on
I Don't Like It territory in regards to standing policy and AfD consensus on something that is not a black-and-white situation that you clearly have a specific opinion on.
Human.v2.0 (
talk) 21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can be wrong if there is no assertion of notability. Failing to meet
WP:N means that an article cannot exist, and the management of
plot information is not a reason to keep it. Wikia is where fiction can freely be documented without having to worry about meeting encyclopedic standards, so someone looking to do that would find that more suitable. If the character can establish notability, providing some sources would clear any doubts.
TTN (
talk) 21:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen your argument, you have tons of these nominations on a sliding scale of sensibility. Agree to disagree, but in this particular case I think you're on the wrong side of the line. Telling people "if you don't like it, go to a different website" is exceedingly inappropriate as well.
Human.v2.0 (
talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per Masem. The article fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG (blogs and fansites are of course not reliable). The keep !votes do not provide any policy-based reasoning and their claims that the article is too long to be merged contradict WP:AVOIDSPLIT, any content can be appropriately trimmed before a merge, and per WP:PAPER, size alone is not a valid reason to ignore policies and guidelines such as WP:GNG. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 20:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge – Per Masem. Character has not been shown to be notable enough to generate independent coverage, and would be better located as part of a character list article. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 15:50, 11 October 2013 (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.
- 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 merge to Lexx. Wanting to discuss a topic in more depth does not automatically make that topic notable. Having a standalone article requires real-world notability. Alternately, a List of characters article would also be acceptable, keeping WP:INUNIVERSE in mind. Mr. Z-man 20:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Kai (LEXX) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kai is one of the protagonists of the TV series Lexx. After three years of the article having notability concerns, I boldly redirected it to the main article, but I was quickly reverted. So, here we are. Kai has many fan pages and a few trivial mentions scattered throughout reliable sources, but Lexx never truly broke out of cult TV show territory. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as a reasonable breakout-for-length of the main article at Lexx. Breaking out characters is common, and this one requires some length. It would be reasonable to merge in the further breakouts Divine Assassin and Brunnen-G. JJL ( talk) 19:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to the main article/character list should one be created. Character lists can be spin-off articles, but single characters need to stand out on their own and do not inherit notability. Without anything to establish real world relevance, over ten paragraphs of plot information is not necessary. TTN ( talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge. To JJL's comment, while a breakout from an series article is reasonable, the first stop is nearly always a list of characters article, which is generally accepted as long as the main show is shown notable; the splitout of a single character requires that character to have out-of-universe notability (such as development or reception about the character). This would be a reasonable solution for Kai and any of the other characters listed at {{ Lexx}}. -- MASEM ( t) 01:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I agree- the main Lexx Article is way too long to consider merging this article in. On top of it all, this is the second time this vote has come up. The consensus was "keep" that time, too, for the same reasons. The idea of merging all the main and minor characters is going to create a list at least as long as the origional lexx page. Honestly, if it were possible to pare down the Lexx page more it might be wise to do so as it's pretty overgrown. Notability for all the major characters does exist, but people need to go in and establish it with links to various news articles and fan sites telling about development, fan reception and other things. Yes, it's arduous, but if multiple people add a little at a time it won't be so bad.
- As a side note, NinjaRobotPirate's redirects were done very suddenly with zero discussion on the main Lexx Talk page (to which Kai's article was redirected). In fact, he stuck redirects on every single character page without asking anyone at all or even attempting to hold a discussion. -- Lamoxlamae ( talk) 22:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - There's too much to try and combine smoothly (the movies/tv series is rather long-running by most standards). The article itself could use a bit of work and better citations, but I think that deletion on the grounds of notability is uncalled for. Human.v2.0 ( talk) 17:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- The information doesn't really matter unless the topic itself can establish notability. If it cannot, it needs to be pruned to a reasonable level in the main article or a list. The in-universe information needs to be a summary amount suitable to its level of notability. There should be no reason that it cannot be summed up in a few sentences (article) or a few paragraphs (list). If you're looking for over ten paragraphs of plot info without meeting WP:N, Wikia is more suitable. TTN ( talk) 18:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen your argument, you have tons of these nominations on a sliding scale of sensibility. Agree to disagree, but in this particular case I think you're on the wrong side of the line. Telling people "if you don't like it, go to a different website" is exceedingly inappropriate as well.
Human.v2.0 (
talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can be wrong if there is no assertion of notability. Failing to meet
WP:N means that an article cannot exist, and the management of
plot information is not a reason to keep it. Wikia is where fiction can freely be documented without having to worry about meeting encyclopedic standards, so someone looking to do that would find that more suitable. If the character can establish notability, providing some sources would clear any doubts.
TTN (
talk) 21:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I get where you're coming from, but you seem to be taking an overall dislike with "pop out" articles but have only (from what I've really seen, with a limited interest in scanning people's edit history) applied this to articles involving some aspect of fiction. While I agree with a good portion of these (the random sprawl of minor D&D elements, for example), it is also within wikipedia practices of have "list of characters" or individual character entries as the case may merit. I personally believe that in this case the situation merits; this is a main character of a long-running movie/tv series with good coverage and sources. You're verging on
I Don't Like It territory in regards to standing policy and AfD consensus on something that is not a black-and-white situation that you clearly have a specific opinion on.
Human.v2.0 (
talk) 21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lists of characters are the only ones given a free pass, but not even they are completely exempt. It is not common practice to allow for standalone character articles to exist only on in-universe info. Only those who show potential for improvement or those that have not been dealt with still exist. Policy agrees with that interpretation, and it would require ignoring a lot of the finer details to make a case otherwise. As for my own editing, I find dealing with fiction to be the most enjoyable, and it's hardly that I don't like it. That interpretation would require that I try to get articles that clearly establish notability deleted. If the character has "good coverage and sources", you should supply them. It's not like the article has to be instantly improved, and simply showing potential would be enough.
TTN (
talk) 21:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure the major reason most the Lexx character pages don't have full references and such is because it's a series which makes it a lot more difficult than working with a shorter work like a film. When dealing with a TV series giving good citations often requires that people go into transcripts of scripts and creator comments, find where it states something then put it up as a reference link to improve citation.There are 61 episodes in Lexx with each transcript being at least 10 pages long: over 600 pages of reading. Heaven help you if your memory is fuzzy on which episode that detail showed up in!
- This doesn't even include the time spent hopping along creators websites, doding defunct webpages, trying to make the wayback machine work and gleaning through fan sites to gather more information. It gets to be very involved and daunting and I can't blame people for being scared. In short, it's a not a case of "absence of evidence being evidence of absence", it's a case of mountains of work being mountains of work and people not wanting to spend 10+ hours per article making citations.
- On a side note, if anyone reading this would like to work with me on getting the main character pages up to snuff, contact me on my talk page. I can share some good jump-off points and we can work together to lighten the load. -- Lamoxlamae ( talk) 00:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lists of characters are the only ones given a free pass, but not even they are completely exempt. It is not common practice to allow for standalone character articles to exist only on in-universe info. Only those who show potential for improvement or those that have not been dealt with still exist. Policy agrees with that interpretation, and it would require ignoring a lot of the finer details to make a case otherwise. As for my own editing, I find dealing with fiction to be the most enjoyable, and it's hardly that I don't like it. That interpretation would require that I try to get articles that clearly establish notability deleted. If the character has "good coverage and sources", you should supply them. It's not like the article has to be instantly improved, and simply showing potential would be enough.
TTN (
talk) 21:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I get where you're coming from, but you seem to be taking an overall dislike with "pop out" articles but have only (from what I've really seen, with a limited interest in scanning people's edit history) applied this to articles involving some aspect of fiction. While I agree with a good portion of these (the random sprawl of minor D&D elements, for example), it is also within wikipedia practices of have "list of characters" or individual character entries as the case may merit. I personally believe that in this case the situation merits; this is a main character of a long-running movie/tv series with good coverage and sources. You're verging on
I Don't Like It territory in regards to standing policy and AfD consensus on something that is not a black-and-white situation that you clearly have a specific opinion on.
Human.v2.0 (
talk) 21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can be wrong if there is no assertion of notability. Failing to meet
WP:N means that an article cannot exist, and the management of
plot information is not a reason to keep it. Wikia is where fiction can freely be documented without having to worry about meeting encyclopedic standards, so someone looking to do that would find that more suitable. If the character can establish notability, providing some sources would clear any doubts.
TTN (
talk) 21:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen your argument, you have tons of these nominations on a sliding scale of sensibility. Agree to disagree, but in this particular case I think you're on the wrong side of the line. Telling people "if you don't like it, go to a different website" is exceedingly inappropriate as well.
Human.v2.0 (
talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per Masem. The article fails to establish the notability of the topic, per the complete absence of "significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources" required by WP:GNG (blogs and fansites are of course not reliable). The keep !votes do not provide any policy-based reasoning and their claims that the article is too long to be merged contradict WP:AVOIDSPLIT, any content can be appropriately trimmed before a merge, and per WP:PAPER, size alone is not a valid reason to ignore policies and guidelines such as WP:GNG. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 20:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Merge – Per Masem. Character has not been shown to be notable enough to generate independent coverage, and would be better located as part of a character list article. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 15:50, 11 October 2013 (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.