mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (C.O.P.S.) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mainframe_(C.O.P.S.)

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 delete. Tough close, a few of the keeps has invalid reasoning so I discounted that. The article doesn't currently meet sourcing guideline therefore I'm deleting it, DHowell has a good but faulty reasoning. If we remove all the plot from this article, it would be only a sentence long, also it needs sources for real world content. Also these fiction AFDs need to stop They should be discussed for a merge in the talk page first unless it's too obvious, not OMG lets nominate one of them for AFD to see the drama happens, and it's usually by the same people as well. That won't work here. Secret account 16:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainframe (C.O.P.S.)

[edit]
Mainframe (C.O.P.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject Jay32183 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I hate to pull WP:WAX, but many other series - cartoon and otherwise - have articles about individual characters. I think that sets a precedent. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't make any claim that no fictional character may have an article, but those that do, must meet the relevant policies and guidelines. If there are others that need to be deleted, this is not the place to discuss them, they get their own discussions. Jay32183 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources that can establish notability on its own. Also seems like *ahem* original research and overdetailed plot summary. MuZemike (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is my article! I don't understand why you decided to delete the article when it's as good informative as it can get. Obviously this is a sign that I need to improve my articles. Update: I put in reference to Mainframe sharing her codename with GI Joe member Blaine Parker. And didn't you notice I put links to youtube videos below the article that has the episodes containing references to what I wrote? Apparently not.--Crazyharp81602 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The episodes are primary sources, we need secondary sources. The "source" you just added has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. The article has no sourced real world context, and no significant coverage. Since plot information must support the real world information, the plot cannot be claimed as significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- This biography of a fictional character does not assert any real-world notability through reliable secondary sources. All the sources are primary ones. Notability of a fictional character is not inherited from the work of fiction they appear in. Reyk YO! 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. I'm not too impressed with arguments based on lack of sources; this is a character from a late-1980s series so sources aren't going to be online. However because about 2/3 of the article is plot summary perhaps the encyclopedic parts of this and the other characters' articles could be merged to a single article about characters in C.O.P.S. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently a major character in a major series, and that is enough justification, since anything written about the series will inevitably discuss her. If it comes to that, I do not think the GNG is rationally applicable to fictional characters. It may be applicable to other things, but these are an exception. We;'ve had enough conflicts here to show how useless a criterion it is for this sort of topic. DGG (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually the GNG would be fine if people didn't improperly synthesize it with other policies and guidelines in order to advance their position that coverage of fiction should be vastly reduced in Wikipedia. The words "real world context" appear nowhere in the notability guideline; any wording of that sort appears in guidelines about how articles should be written, not about whether they should be written. Works of fiction which are not self-published are reliable sources for the characters and elements described within, the reliable source guideline even explicitly says that "for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction". As long as only descriptive claims are made that can be verified by anyone with access to the work of fiction, it is not original research. Finally, when multiple writers write fictional stories about a fictional character, as is the case with the main characters of most major TV series, that is independent coverage of the subject. "Independent" means independent of the subject, not independent of the subject's owner, unless we are also going to argue that Time magazine is not an independent reliable source for information about a Warner Bros. film, because they are both owned by Time Warner. This article meets the relevant content policies; any alleged deficiences re WP:NOT#PLOT are solved by trimming plot summary or expanding real-world context, not by deletion. DHowell (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PLOT specifically requires real-world context in all articles. If it isn't supporting real world context, then the plot has to be cut to nothing. Things need to be notable in the real world, not the fictional world. That's why significant coverage of real world context is required. Playing policies against each other is acting in bad faith, while working them together is not. We're supposed to follow all the policies, which means combining them. Jay32183 (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DHowell. Policies are meant to help building WP. Applying them is not a goal in itself. Interpreting them as "everything fiction must be destroyed NOW" is misguided. Laurent paris (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is interpreting it as destroying all fiction, except the people arguing to keep. We can have articles on fictional things, but they must be from the perspective of the real world, and require sources supporting that content. See Jason Vorhees for example. It meets the criteria that this article doesn't. Or even Lionel Luthor; it meets the criteria too. Jay32183 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the destruction of most fiction articles is exactly what's happening. The Lionel Luthor is a good example of what's wrong with this deletionist policy. The character is not more notable outside of fiction than those nominated. Most of the article is a collection of plot details that wouldn't pass Wikipedia:Not#plot, except they're riddled with sources, most of which are primary. By the same logic, it should be deleted. So escaping deletion is really a popularity contest. Laurent paris (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Escaping deletion is decided by WP:NOTE. Trying to say that the goal of any AfD on a fictional subject is that "everything fiction must be destroyed NOW" is plainly silly and ludicrous. Show two, hell even one source that demonstrates notability and you have a solid argument instead of the rather empty statement you have now. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 11:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was addressing Jay32183's Lionel Luthor example. This article certainly doesn't pass Wikipedia:Not#plot or even WP:NOTE as interpreted in most AfDs, but for some reason I don't see it being deleted anytime soon. Hence my popularity contest comment. And before calling my arguments silly and ludicrous (way to go, admin) when did I say the goal of just any AFD on a fictional subject was to delete all fiction? I don't think WP policies should be ignored, just that deleting every substandard article on sight, which seems to be the primary activity of some editors here is misguided. Assessment and tags should be enough. (But on a side note, I do think WP:NOTE is fundamentally wrong and that the deletionist zealots are destroying what made WP so great in the first place, this from a reader PoV) Laurent paris (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No refs and this sort of thing is too vulnerable to OR and interpretation. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OR is a reason to clean-up not delete.
I actually said "vulnerable to OR", as in the article's subject. No amount of promised clean-up can stop fans from interjecting their own thoughts or interpretations. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an even worse argument for deletion. Anything can be "vulnerable" to OR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Anything" ay? That's a bit of sensationalist statement, I'd like to see you add some of your own thoughts and interpretations to George Bush's article. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:31, 8 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.