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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Powers

[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Even fictional characters must be shown to be notable. I could find no evidence that this is the case for Mr. Powers. Simply redirecting doesn't help, as Nancy Drew#Video games does not include a section on characters. ubiquity (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following Nancy Drew-related pages because they also fail WP:GNG:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look through all of them, but this seems like an ideal place to merge all into a newly-created List of minor Nancy Drew characters. I note that many of these seem to be from books, rather than video games, but again, I haven't read through everything in detail. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This has already been done for The Hardy Boys in List of The Hardy Boys characters and for Tom Swift in List of Tom Swift characters. I'm not sure I understand why Nancy Drew deserves special treatment here except for characters (such as possibly Bess Marvin) whose notability on their own merit can be solidly demonstrated. ubiquity (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not opposed to a merge, theoretically, but that would require some indication that the "minor Nancy Drew characters" have some notability unto themselves, with articles about them individually or as a group but not enough to warrant separate articles. As far as I can tell, these pages are just Wikia-style repositories of in-universe primary sourced info, so they should be either transwikied to Wikia or just outright deleted. czar 17:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without proper sources to establish notability, there is no need for excessive plot information. Any pages where they are mentioned can likely cover all relevant details without needing for them to be merged anywhere. TTN (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reformulate this AFD on a character-by-character basis. Alternately, Keep Bess Marvin, create List of minor Nancy Drew characters that includes Hannah Gruen and may or may not include others on the list. But, at a minimum, please do separate AFDs for Bess Marvin and Hannah Gruen, because if anyone who knows anything about the issue is a Wikipedian who skims through the AFD lists, shoehorning these far-more-notable characters in under the principal title of a nobody without a crossreference is going to lead to the wrong result. Combining all these articles into one AFD is cumbersome at best, because the characters, and their coverage, aren't remotely comparable. While I agree some of these characters are crufty, please let me put this into a potentially more familiar pop-culture universe: Combining these articles in one AFD is like combining a proposed cull of South Park articles to include Dougie, Butters Stotch, Randy Marsh, and Kenny McCormick in one AFD discussion—and captioning it only with Dougie!. I assure you I know better than to argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is in no way my goal. I'm just trying to give a sense of perspective between the relative indispensability of female second lead Bess Marvin, clearly notable supporting character Hannah Gruen (no less so than Stan's dad in SP), and unheard-of "one[-]time" computer game character Vivian Burnett Whitmore (seriously, who?).

All that being said, I'm going to play the gender card here, for the record if nothing else: if there were more women editing Wikipedia this would never have happened, because plenty of women know the gosh-darned difference between arguable Riot Grrrl subcultural icon Bess Marvin (whose article has gained a number of citations in the past week, I note) and some computer game character who admittedly has nothing to do with anything. This is in NO way intended to be a slight on the editor raising the AFD discussion because that's what a community is for. The articles weren't great and Ubiquity was within rights to call shenanigans; we should all feel comfortable nominating cruft for deletion. It's a slight on the fact that nobody in the world until this week has added citations to establish the notability of at least the character on this list who is a relatively universally known figure in the past and present audience of American girl-focused children's literature, and a slight on the fact that a random 45-year-old lady who's working on a deadline on a real-world project over a holiday weekend is the only person here ranting and raving against across-the-board deletion, because this "fandom" is almost entirely female, when a male-based fandom would have a discussion going out the door and getting written up on blogs for its vehemence. This compares to the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton issue: a significant group of humans find this thoroughly notable, but they're not on Wikipedia to rant about it for whatever reason even though they will be sad if the article isn't there when they go looking for it.

Many thanks to relister Northamerica1000 for not closing this before I had a chance to see it. I will see what I can do to establish notability for, at best, Bess Marvin outside fancruftland, because it exists; I just need to find a couple of hours in the JDL-universe to be able to prove it. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the case for separate articles (or AfDs for that matter) based on the added sources, if that's all that exists. There's nothing to stop someone from redirecting Bess Marvin to a place where she is covered (if one exists), but right now there is a difference between being important to a series and/or subculture and having enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to warrant a separate article. czar 00:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think we need different AfDs for some of these pages, because the AfD process is consensus-based, not vote-based. If the consensus is to allow some of the pages to stay, and others to be merged into a list, that's fine. The consensus doesn't have to be delete-all or keep-all. I would be happy to see any of these pages kept if their subjects can be shown to be notable. I initially only nominated pages with no references at all (which is why Carson Drew didn't make my cut), and I see that a number of references have been added to some of the articles since then. I did not withdraw these pages from nomination because I'd like to see some consensus that the references are enough to establish notability, but it seems like this is the case with Bess Marvin.

I'm not sure gender has anything to do with this. I'm a guy, but I read all the Nancy Drew books when I was a kid, and I can distinguish between the importance of someone like Bess Marvin, and someone like Dwayne Powers. But the fact is that none of the nominated articles had any references at the time of their nomination, and this is an encyclopedia, not a fan-wiki. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the way we keep that from happening is by insisting on notability, as demonstrated by appropriate sources. These have still not been provided for the bulk of the nominated articles. ubiquity (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant WP:IINFO, but that doesn't really matter, because WP:IINFO lists four specific types of indiscriminate info, and this isn't one of them. In fact, anything that's ever referred to as "*cruft" by any editor is actually more likely to be too discriminate (i.e., bordering on the trivial), rather than indiscriminate. An indiscriminate list might be something like "cat, pencil, travel trailer, Spiro Agnew". Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and then Redirect however if as needed, as there's still nothing actually convincing and there's not going to be, considering they're simply characters. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: I find the nom's argument persuasive, and agree that Wikipedia is not the NancyDrewWiki. Beyond that, I have no idea why this was relisted twice, and relisting it a third time's just absurd; there has been a clear consensus to delete, and only one dissenting voice. (As far as that goes, despite Julietdeltalima's passionate dissent and assertion that not only could the articles she advocates keeping can be sourced, but she would go ahead and do that, the aforementioned articles haven't been touched since her post, a span of time during which she's made about seven hundred edits.) Ravenswing 03:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, or merge all, if we must. Each is not notable, but collectively they might be. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2016 (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.