Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke (Percy Jackson)
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. John254 02:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Luke (Percy Jackson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and discuss whether or not to merge All the usual reasons. Every individual statement in the nomination is inapplicable. Merged content in a character combination article does not have to show individual notability, so a merge would appropriate, not deletion, if there is not individual sourcing. Perhaps there is--I don't think it's been looked for; the series is sufficiently notable that something is surely written about it,at least reviews, and they might well discuss this major character in a substantial way. I do not think there is a consensus that real world information is necessary for individual parts of our coverage of fiction, just for the coverage as a whole. There is, however, consensus, that third party sources are not needs as RSs for content in the case of routine description--they are for interpretation, so some of the article needs to be rewritten, but that's not reason for deletion. Just the OR portion needs sourcing or removal, not the whole article. There is no consensus about how much plot detail is necessary or unnecessary. Everything is capable of future improvement, and that there need be an assertion of this is a purely imaginary requirement as far as I can tell invented by TTN. Finally, the encyclopedia contains what is desirable, not the minimum that is necessary. For further background on these nominations, there's an ongoing WP:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case:TTN RfArb DGG (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Show some discussions, and your thinking, specifically related to this article, not just copy/paste AfDs. The way you mass nominate articles, I don't have time to have an opinion other than that. I'm having trouble assuming good faith on these mass noms. All that's left is a copy/paste response. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2008 (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.