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 all to List of Oz characters. T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cayke[edit]

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

WP:GNG. We're not Oz Wikia, we don't need articles on every Oz character who was in one chapter of one book, especially if they're stubs and are only referenced by Oz compendia

I am also nominating the following other articles:

Note that I am only nominating ones that I feel to be very definitely non-notable; you may want to consider others as well Purple backpack89 05:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Sir Hokus of Pokes, one of Ruth Plumly Thompson's most significant contributions to Oz, is non-notable, I'm not sure you're qualified to determine if any of the others are, either. Unc Nunkie is a major character in two books, one of which has been made into a film twice, and Cayke is a major character in one book, and a much more significant, if ordinary character than the Frogman, who also appears significantly only in that same book. Ugu the Shoemaker is a major villain for one book, as are Bell-snickle and Mrs. Yoop, and Belfaygor is a major hero for for one book. Many of these characters had more written about them by Baum than any wicked witch (except Mombi). The Barrel Bird is significant for cross-series implications, having debuted in a non-Oz book, and ditto for the Wise Donkey.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely inclined to agree with Scottandrewhutchins on this. Most of these characters have had major roles throughout the series. It seems like this list was chosen at random with no regard to the content or information in the articles. I nominate they stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarperofOz (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm just following GNG, which states that if a subject isn't talked about in reliable third-party publication (and Oz fan compendia aren't that), it should be deleted. Being a character in a book or two doesn't automatically qualify you for inclusion in this Wikipedia, you have to appear in reliable publications. Also, compare with minor characters in Harry Potter (Bellatrix Lestrange) and The Simpsons (Rainier Wolfcastle)...often, minor characters like these are merged into articles devoted to a list of characters (yes, I know that's an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). There might also be possible COPYVIO problems. And the two wicked witches are notable due to their presence in the book and musical Wicked, plus West's portrayal in the movie. You seem to also be arguing that the Thompson books and later Baum books should be placed on an equal footing with the earlier Baum books; which doesn't quite jab with GNG as the earlier Baum books are much more well-known, well-read, and well-written about. Saying that no regard to content was paid is untrue; I looked at the amount of third-party information in the article, and if it's insufficient...BAM! AFD! If you want me to add Frogman to the list, that can be arranged. Purple backpack89 07:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Character articles must be held to stringent standards. If they don't have the references to meet WP:NOTE and don't have any real-word creation and reception info, then we don't work like Wikia; we get rid of those that don't meet our criteria. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, notability is not inherited, so the fact that they are major characters in notable books is irrelevant. They must have notability independent of and have the outside sources to back it up. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because they appeared in a notable work, doesn't make the characters themselves notable. If reliable sourcing and such can be found for any of these characters, they might be worth keeping. As it is, I'm presuming these characters are not notable. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Reach Out to the Truth 21:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a List of characters in Oz or something to that effect. As they stand now, no notability covers any of them. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most into List of Oz characters. Keep Sir Hokus of Pokes.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the characters meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, as none has significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Additionally, most of the articles are plot-only descriptions of fictional works. Jfgslo (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an article like List of Oz characters. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Oz characters - individual articles don't seem notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The nominator seems to have arrived at this list by consulting his feelings. When we look at the actual evidence, we find that these characters are documented in works such as Who's who in Oz, Oz in perspective and Oz and beyond. They are therefore notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of POV pushing? As several editors have stated, those are not reliable enough sources (see Jfgslo, above). Any of the articles that are likely to have the development and reception sections necessary for a proper character article have been left out of the purview of this discussion. Most of these characters in this are minor characters; similar characters in other universes have been merged into "List of ... characters in the ..." Purple backpack89 01:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your selection does seem to be based upon objective evidence and so is, instead, a matter of personal opinion. When I test your claims of non-notability against the sources available, I find that they are false. And your proposed remedy does not address the supposed problem. How would merger into a list make something that is not notable more notable? It seems that you do want this material covered rather than deleted and have a preferred format or style. This is not what AFD is for. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This selection is not made from personal opinion, but is a collection of articles that violate policy by not demonstrating notability and being mere plot summaries, something that we are defined as not being. The last source given at least, Oz and Beyond, appears reliable by nature of its University publisher, but, since we can't see inside of them, how do you determine that they demonstrate the notability of the characters? How do we know that they are not just passing mentions, and just as importantly, do we know that these sources give ANY information other than what the character does in the novels? Because if a character article is only summary of role in plot, no matter how many sources, it still violates site policy by running afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, putting them in a list wouldn't make them more notable. The list is notable. The characters, as simple plot summaries here, are better presented with other minor characters. Why do so many users have a hard time graspoing the benefits of a merger? Not every topic must be explained on its own page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep content. If nominator wants to spend time combining 20 articles into one, and content is preserved, there's no deletion going on.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean merge? Purple backpack89 05:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- all these articles are poorly sourced plot summary. There is no attempt to describe the real-world significance and I can't find any either, Colonel Warden's usual tactic of pointing at books he hasn't read notwithstanding. What little sourced material exists could be merged, if not for the fact that all that stuff is already in the obvious merge targets so there's nothing to do; those articles are pretty well full of plot summary already and would not benefit from more. Reyk _YO! 09:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Your opinion of the content of the list of books Col. W has read is noted. Your inability to see the citations he provided is mysterious, as is your decision to attempt an ad hominem argument in an AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I forgot to say that I think The Phonograph should be a redirect to Phonograph. Reyk _YO! 02:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list article along the lines of List of Oz characters or List of characters in Oz or List of recurring minor characters in Oz. Each character is so minor that creating a full article on them would be impossible. Information about these minor characters is useful and encyclopedic, but spreading that information over 30 permastub articles is not useful. SnottyWong ^gossip 14:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Oz characters. No prejudice against recreation if enough reliable sources are added. Edward321 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list and spam RFC until they are fixed. There is no need to consider whether notability is inherited, or whether some of them are more major characters; they have all been covered extensively as per Col. Warden. Redirecting them to a list? Hmm. And the content of that list is to be a bunch of subjects with no articles? You are being played. Stubs are underrated, and the only practical solution for this subject matter. Note that WP:PERMASTUB is itself a stub sized essay with two WP:RECENTISM Rule Clones as rationales and a giant template. Delete that, not this. Anarchangel (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is very much a backwards, more labour intensive, and annoying way of doing things. Basically poke someone else until they come make these worthy of inclusion? No, you merge the exact content of these articles into a single article where each character has their own heading. As each character is improved, and when they become noteworthy of a new article, you fork them out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But surely poking other editors is what deletors do, in opposition to the intention of RFC, by making AfDs for no other reason than improvement being needed on articles. I am merely proposing doing it the way WP intended. Your proposal is not practical; content in list articles is quite rightly restricted to sub-stub length, as befits summary articles. WP content that actually gets spun off into new articles is usually modern events. For example, Falklands_War#Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano. This is as much information as will ever be available, should they be merged. Anarchangel (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the major ones from Baum's books, & combine the others, retaining all content. The key thing is to retain the content, not where to put it. What has to be avoided is putting this into a mere list. List of Oz characters is an clear example of what not to do: it provides the reader with no information at all, except that this is a character in one or more of the Oz books, without any knowledge of which or the relative importance. Such coverage is below that of a proper encyclopedia. Even if we do have a one line list of this sort, it needs to show the work (and in this case also identify the author), and say ,something like " the protagonist ", or " a minor figure "

The rationale for keeping the major one is that this is a series that is not only notable, but is internationally famous; and among the famous ones, it would be among the most famous. For such a series we need comprehensive articles on the main characters, and as least a paragraph (either as a list or separate article) about every minor character who has a role in the plot, and a list of every named character, giving in one line the role and the books. (Dissension about whether a character is major or minor is easily compromise d by using either a longer section in a combined article, or a shorter separate one. I limit this to Baum's books: the most famous works of a famous author. I consider that the continuations in the canon should get one level lower treatment: Short articles or long sections on the main characters, and a paragraph in a list fro the minor ones, but still a list of all the characters. In most series, as here, not just some of the major but some of the minor characters repeat in different books, which makes it much harder to discuss them as sections in the book article. This fulfills NOT INDISCRIMINATE. A truly indiscriminate work, like an Oz Wiki, would have articles as comprehensive as possible for every single one of the characters--we should not do that, even for the most famous works.

I am only slightly familiar with some of the series--I did not even know about the existence of all the continuations until I started working on this AfD . I am probably in this field the type of ignorant but interested reader a general encyclopedia is aimed at, and I know if I intend to read the books or talk about them with someone who has, a mere listing is not helpful.

An AfD to merge all the medium and low important characters together for multiple books, is not a good idea. The provision for multiple listing is that they must be of the same degree of importance, and it seems from reading the articles that this is not the case . I suggest that an try at merging the minor characters only, going as closely related group at a time, might work better. I wouldn't attempt to do this with first reading the book(s) involved--I don't like to speculate. AndI have a question: how many of the people !voting to delete or make a minimal list have actually read all the articles they are proposing to dismiss, or are they !voting to delete articles about whose contents they are ignorant? (btw, I think the nominator has made it clear he has read all the articles, just as he should.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Comment - Notability is not inherited, this means that, no matter how major a work, a major character in that work is not automatically notable enough for an article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Re:DGG...I agree with you that the major characters should be kept. There are articles on over forty Oz characters, and of these probably only 10 or 15 have enough content and reception to stand on their own (Dorothy, Ozma, the Tin Man, etc.). Though the articles nominated are of varying length and importance, most have in common that they are not a titular or major character in any one book. Most characters that have had a titular role, or a major role in multiple books have been left out of this discussion. There may be some not mentioned in this AFD that may need to be merged as well (for example, the Shaggy Man, Polychrome, and Belinda).

Re:Anac...permastubs are not useful in this Wikipedia, and permastub is a perfectly acceptable policy, especially for articles of questionable notability. I also fail to see that Colonel added a citation to any article. I agree that, as with second-tier Simpsons characters, if somebody's going to go to the effort to add dev/reception sections and lots of references, the articles can be saved. But if they're not, they gotta be merged or deleted. Purple backpack89 19:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The characters are not notable enough for their own article, it would be best to merge them into List of Oz characters. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all as a compromise. Most of these probably aren't notable. But it will be possible to expand and split out the major characters if/when the sourcing improves. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The policy Wikipedia:No original research - plot permits a Wikipedian editor to describe a fictional character's plot role by citing passages from the fictional material. Thus, unlike non-fiction material, the fictional material itself is a source material that passes WP:OR and contributes to worthy of notice analysis for WP:GNG. WP:PLOT requires that more than just the primary source be available as material for the article. In each of the listed articles, material from the Oz compendia is available to provide secondary source material to meet WP:NOT. In regards to WP:GNG, the collective of (i) the fictional material itself (due to the policy Wikipedia:No original research - plot) plus (ii) the likelihood of other available reliable source material need only be more than a trivial mention to meet WP:N. Here, many of the articles have yet to include material from the Oz compendia and, unlike what is asserted in the nomination, others cite secondary source material that is not the Oz compendia. In addition, many of the listed articles have yet to fully make use of the fictional material series itself as a source material or the secondary sources cited above by Colonel Warden. Further, the likelihood of additional source material for each of the listed articles is very strong in view of the fact that the series "is not only notable, but is internationally famous; and among the famous ones, it would be among the most famous" per DGG above. Even if it now is not in the articles, this presently existing source material clearly is sufficient to meet WP:N and will provide plenty of material for these articles to grow over time. Not only are the stand-alone article sufficient to meet WP:GNG with a prospect for expansion, they are appropriate for the reasons listed above. The delete/merge position has multiple flaws. First, it judges notability based on the state of the article itself rather than a likelihood of source material available for the article. In addition, there is no requirement that each fictional character be the main topic of the Baum series. Further, WP:OR has long provided a fictional material exception to the source material that may be used in determining GNG for topics on fiction. The secondary source Oz compendia, those listed above by Colonel Warden, and the DGG famous among the famous observation means that all of the listed articles can be well more than primary source plot-only descriptions of fictional works. (I didn't find any plot-only description articles and no one in this AfD has listed any). The nomination itself is fatally flawed because the listed articles are not similarly situated when it comes to the reasons given for the nomination. This has cause confusion among those trying to give a reason to merge or delete. In regards to merge, each article needs to be individually evaluated to determine whether List of Oz characters or some other target article would be a more appropriate article. No one has presented any reasonable analysis as to why List of Oz characters or some other target article would be a more appropriate article. The merge and delete positions are weak. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the merge and delete arguments are weak, the keep argument is weaker. Almost all the articles nominated are plot-only permastubs; none of them pass the stringent requirements for character notability (we're talking minor characters here; some of these are mentioned for only one or two chapters). Having read each of the articles, I can assure you that most of them deal mostly with plot, often in an in-universe manner. I doubt the validity of Colonel's sources a) being reliable third-party and b) having the kind of information on dev/reception needed to save these articles. And as we've said all along, if somebody digs up a lot of sources and expands the articles beyond permastub, they can be kept; otherwise they should be deleted Purple backpack89 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Almost all plot summary, very little info outside of that if any at all. If, and only if, a greater notability is found they can be made into their own article, but as of now I see no reason they should not be combined.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of characters article. No individual notability so that's the best place for this. Eusebeus (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the list of characters, with generous levels of reduction. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect/whatever. Most of these, like previously stated, are plot-only permastubs. For a character to be notable for an article, there must be some real world content. Somebody shouldn't be able to just read a book, and then write an article about the character. There must be interviews on development, reception of their role, or overall insight from reliable sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:54, 17 February 2011 (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.