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. While I personally would lean towards blowing this up and starting over, there's clear consensus against that argument. The notability of the topic is not in question. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Foundation series characters[edit]

List of Foundation series characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Per WP:NOTPLOT, "Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works." But that's all there is here: plot summary, sourced only to the original works, if at all. Such content belongs in fan wikis. Sandstein 11:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 11:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 11:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:DINC and WP:BEFORE failure. So, I haven't read Foundation, etc. in 30 years, but everyone knows it's one of Asimov's two (later stitched together) masterworks. So, here's my process:
  1. Pick a character at random: Homir Munn. I seriously have no idea who this character is, again, haven't read the series in years.
  2. Plug the name of one single fictional character into Google Scholar.
  3. 1, 2, 3 are the first three entries. Fifth is this.
     That's four non-trivial, independent RS in less than 30 seconds of searching. It seriously has taken me maybe 10 times the search length to write up the process. Sandstein while I appreciate the current state of the article is undersourced, deletion is for things that are unsourceable, and this article is demonstrably sourceable. Please withdraw the nomination. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No. What you provide are sources for an entirely different article: an article about Homir Munn and their significance in the history of science fiction. What we have is not that article. What we have is a bunch of hastily thrown together plot summaries with no connection to the real world. No amount of sources can salvage that content. The problem is WP:NOT, not WP:V or WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sandstein: If we assume that those sources have at least some non-plot information about Homir Munn, but probably not enough to support a stand-alone article on Homir Munn, then these source are relevant exactly for our article here, under the list selection criterion "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". The example featured in the Wikipedia guideline is the List of Dilbert characters, which very closely resembles our case here. Daranios (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Daranios beat me to it. Sandstein, assuming for the sake of argument that the list as it stands may currently only be plot summary, are you seriously suggesting that a "List of <fictional franchise> characters" that currently does not pass muster, cannot be made a compliant list by ordinary editing? Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  With the same argument, you could create an article with the title "Economy of France in the interwar period" and the contents "POOP!", and when somebody objects you just point to pages and pages of sources on Google about the economy of France in the interwar period to make the case that your text "POOP!" should be kept because it is under a title for which there are a lot of sources. That may in fact be the case, but that does not change that here and now the contents of your article are poop, as they are in this case. Sandstein 20:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ... Except that that's 1) a WP:WAX argument, and 2) irrelevant to the list under consideration. Really, Sandstein, it's disappointing that you to fail to simply acknowledge that Wikipedia has a ton of "List of <fictional franchise> characters" articles of variable quality. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm not saying that this article should be deleted because there are other bad articles. I'm saying that this article should be deleted because it cannot be improved except by a total rewrite. Yes, we have a lot of similar articles: some are good and should stay, some are mediocre and should be kept and improved by editing, and some like this one are so bad that they need to be WP:TNTed. Sandstein 21:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sandstein this edit is what I was terming a WP:WAX argument, but that may be overly charitable, because the examples listed in that page all presume an argument is made from the basis of a real argument, rather than a hypothetical argument, which is what yours is. You also fail to understand that "editing is editing" and there is no difference in policy ever made between editing 5, 50, or 100% of an article to improve the content: any amount of editing that doesn't require admin tools is "regular editing" absent any citation you can find otherwise. WP:TNT is an essay that in large part differs from WP:DEL policy, which at WP:DEL-CONTENT doesn't even have the 'regular' qualifier in the directive that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I have no problem with you not liking the current state of this article; we agree it could and should be better. I do have a problem with someone who should know better referring to an essay at odds with actual policy as if it could override policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being impossible to source is not the only valid WP:Reason for deletion (it is one of them, specifically WP:DELREASON#6). The nomination seems to be arguing that the list in question violates WP:NOT, which is a separate question (WP:DELREASON#14). TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Precisely. Sandstein 18:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. I mostly agree with Jclemens but want to explain more in light of what's been said: I agree that the article currently fails WP:NOTPLOT. But the current state of an article is no grounds for deletion for "If an article can be improved through normal editing, simply fix it"! So can it be fixed i.e. can what we have now be a basis for an article which no longer falls under WP:NOT? We would need to find secondary sources that give us non-plot information on enough characters to warrant a list. I think that can be done, it is just quite a bit of work. So like Jclemens I think in our case here WP:BEFORE requires a search on ALL characters in the list. Only when such a search produced not enough useable material, then deletion would be warranted in my view. The first found sources already indicate that something can be found, and a list fitting Wikipedia's list selection criteria can be written here. In addition, the one secondary source already in the article, Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION Novels: Historical Materialism Distorted into Cyclical Psycho-History, has analysis on "characters in the Foundation series" as a whole (and definitely non-plot about them), further indicating that this topic is notable. The lesser critizism, that content is not or primary sourced, could for the most part be solved by using Palumbo's book An Asimov Companion: Characters, Places and Terms in the Robot/Empire/Foundation Metaseries alone. Does anyone have access to Gunn's Isaac Asimov: The Foundations of Science Fiction? I wonder how much non-plot info on the Foundation characters is in there. Daranios (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted above, the problem is not that the topic is not notable. The problem is that the entire contents of the article violate WP:NOT, which cannot be remedied by sourcing, but only by deleting. Entirely rewriting the article, which would be needed to fix the NOTPLOT proble, is not "improving by normal editing". Sandstein 20:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you cite a guideline or policy for your assertion, please? WP:WHATISTOBEDONE seems to directly contradict you. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, WP:WHATISTOBEDONE supports this AfD. It first suggests "modifying the content of an article (normal editing)". That is not feasible here because the entire contents of the article are worthless; "modifying" does not mean "rewriting entirely". Then it suggests "turning the page into a redirect", which I would be fine with as well, or "nominating the page for deletion", which is why we're here. Sandstein 21:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: You say the reason not to go with the FIRST option of WP:WHATISTOBEDONE is because everything we currently have is "worthless". But what we have is plot summary. And in contrast to your example above (which, by the way, would fall under WP:DELREASON#3, vandalism, rather then WP:DELREASON#14 which we are arguing about here), that is something that is officially wanted. First by common sense - how could an article about a fictional topic be good without a plot summary of its in-universe nature? - and second exactly by the WP:NOT policy itself, which says that for creative works we should have commentary "in addition to concise summaries of those works"! So is the WP:TNT essay applicable? I say no because plot summary is not useless, and no because the problem here is not "beyond fixing". Trim the plot summary as necessary, provide references, add non-plot content based on secondary sources. Voilà, you have made this into an encyclopedic article by means of normal editing. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per WP:TNT (which is what Sandstein seems to be having difficulties remembering), it would be possible to delete this if its bad enough (given this is almost entirely unsourced, and the few citations are to the stories themselves (WP:PRIMARY), that's a quite likely possibility - and given this also probably contains a lot of WP:FANCRUFT [just from reading a few entries], that seems almost certain); and obviously allow re-creation afterwards with the kind of sources shown by Jclemens. The alternative, since this is unambiguously notable; would be to draftify and let it be improved there; since it is clearly unfit for mainspace as it stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Foundation series or draftify/delete per Avilich (further below) and Sandstein, and per my own comment, about the fundemantal issue being WP:NOT. This shouldn't be in mainspace as is; and either of these options fixes that problem for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral not convinced but my initial argument doesn't seem to apply anymore. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or Draftify) per nom - The issue, as described by Sandstein, is not that its impossible to find viable sources discussing the subject of the article's title, its that the current article completely fails WP:NOT and would need to be entirely rewritten as essentially a new article. I have no doubt that an actual article or list that meets our policies' requirements could be created, but until that is done, content that blatantly goes against one of our core policies should not be retained in the mainspace. If, during the course of this AFD, a proper rewrite is actually done I'll be happy to change my recommendation. Likewise, as suggested by RandomCanadian, I have no problem of it being kept as a draft to do the rewrite using it as the base prior to returning to the mainspace. Rorshacma (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A very notable series, so a spinoff article for the characters is justified. Dream Focus 09:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The list is very fancrufty, but the series has generated works like Foundation Cast Guide & All New Book Characters Explained (Screenrant) and Jared Harris & the Cast of ‘Foundation’ Get Inside the Minds of Their Characters (VIDEO) (TVInsider). Whether the list was notable a few years ago, before the new sources and attention due to TV adaptation, hmm. But it is probably fine now. Regarding the TNT, which I do invoke myself every now and then, this is not an ureadable ORish mess. It's readable ORish organized content. That's fixable by cutting down fancrufty PLOT, but frankly, it's just plot. Leave it be and expand it with reception, as shown, some exits and more will likely come overthe next few years. PS. Also, there's an academically reviewed book about Asimov's characters: [1]. It probably has enough about all of them to make this list fine, if only someone would bother to read it and rewrite it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: We had tens of individual articles on most of the characters, which almost all failed to meet Wikipedia:Notability. I performed some mergers into this list, per the Notability guideline which states "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ...". This is what has been done for the Foundation series. --LoЯd ۞pεth 15:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All of this are arguments about notability, which I do not contest. But regardless of notability, per WP:NOTPLOT, we should delete or draftify content that consists only of plot summary. We can then restore the article as soon as it contains substantial non-plot content, such as content about reception, cultural significance, etc. Sandstein 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Foundation series or draftify. As per WP:WAF, spin-off articles are not repositories for excess OR/fancruft. In-universe and plot information should be trimmed as much as possible and dealt with in the parent article, which in turn should only be split when the amount of adequately-sourced content allows it. As it stands, this article should not be in the mainspace, and WP:NOT is a policy, meaning it takes precedence over WP:N which is a guideline. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Avilich: Hmm, if we are talking hierarcies here, jep, WP:NOT is a policy. It in turn refers us to the deletion policy. And that ones says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." That then should take precedence over WP:WAF which also, like WP:N, is a guideline. Daranios (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"... this should be done rather than deleting the page"--but we have multiple pages about the same subject, and this doesn't contradict the general idea in WAF that spin-offs should only be created when the quantity of policy-compliant content demands it. A different article can improved, so your quoted policy becomes kind of useless with regards to the one we're discussing rn. I see you began an editing spree in hopes of belatedly saving this article from extinction. Instead, you could focus your attention on the parent article, as WAF recommends, and allow the list to be removed as uncontroversial housekeeping. If the parent article ever becomes unwieldy (WP has no deadline), the a character list can be split off from it. This doesn't deviate from the spirit of any particular policy or guideline.

In the end, what this discussion is about is whether the available information on the topic should be added to Foundation series (non-keep votes) or to the character list (keep votes). WP:WAF supports the former, and this isn't contradicted by any specific guideline or policy, so I'm going with that. Keep in mind there's no dispute about content or notability here, this is all purely bureaucratic; following WAF would solve the issue with the least amount of effort. Avilich (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: If that's your take on it I am wondering why you are advocating for a redirect rather than a selective merge. Personally, I think e.g. the individual comparisons between historical figures and Foundation characters are better presented here than in the Foundation series article.

As a side point, I am slightly irked by my "spree" being called "belated", given the fact that step C 3. of the WP:BEFORE process, raising concern and allowing for time to remedy, was skipped here. (In good faith, surely, as the nominator did not see anything worth improving, but I have explained why I disagree with that premise.) Daranios (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich, Daranios is right. You owe him an apology for criticizing his attempts to improve an article during a deletion discussion. Your criticism is categorically inappropriate, per our policies cited here, and unhelpfully worded in a way that comes across as inconsistent with WP:AGF. Jclemens (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios and Jclemens: apologies then, my intention was just to suggest that your efforts might be better spent in the other page or in a hypothetical draft, where (unlike here) you would not have any time constraints, than in a disposable and volatile page. A selective merge is not incompatible with a redirect; the more encompassing alternative makes it easier to reach a consensus. Avilich (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: Thank you for the clarification. I still hope my input helps to show that changing this into a proper encyclopedic article is not as problematic as some initially thought, and will not ultimately be wasted. I curiously await how this discussion will end/be closed. Daranios (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is not very helpful for lists etc. Someone searching for "List of Foundation series characters" or something like that (using a search engine or from within Wikipedia) would expect a list, not more general information about the series. In that case just deleting is better.Gunnar Larsson (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine too, I don't really care, what matters is that in-universe content should be trimmed, not expanded to multiple articles. A redirect could be undone if a separate article ever becomes appropriate again. Avilich (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: In contrast the the assertion that there is only plot summary, the article contains some inspirations/comparisons of the characters to historic figures. It's not a lot percentagewise, but it's not negligible either. Those points are also not "fancruft", as academic sources deal with them.

The essay WP:TNT has been invoked. I want to point to another essay, WP:WORKINPROGRESS. It says: "Recently, people have been getting themselves in a panic because the quality of Wikipedia is not as high as they'd like it to be. ... If you aren't satisfied with it now, help improve it". So why not spend the energy we are using here into improvement? I've made a bit of a start (and would greatly appreciate improvements of phrasing), so we already have a bit more beyond plot summary now. Daranios (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While this article is just a fancruft, the subject seems notable. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Subject being notable (which does not appear to be denied by anybody) does not address the deletion reason (which is that this is uselessly unencyclopedic; that it fails WP:NOT and WP:V in its current state, and that it would be better to start over or at least move it to draft space so that someone can better presenting something that is informative to our readers and not something that belongs on fandom. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Just wanted to note that the "current state" has changed a bit since the nomination. Hopefully this can be an indicator how the article can be improved incrementally, which is the way Wikipedia has been built up for the most part. And not unsuccessfully, I'd say. Daranios (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the section at the top, the rest still reads like a massive WP:NOTPLOT violation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: And a few bits here and there in other sections are also no plot-summary. So why delete all of that together with the plot-summary - which in my view is too much, but still a valid part that "would belong in the "finished" article" - rather than continue to improve? Daranios (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nobody seems to agree with the nominator (per RandomCanadian) and other delete contributions cite fixable problems. You know... the sort of problems that should be fixed before something is nominated anyway. All this effort to point out that something should be fixed, and no effort made to fix it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is clearly notable, and will only be more so in the coming weeks and years as the Apple TV series continues. In any case, the content is not so terrible in respect to WP:NOTPLOT that deletion is the answer. Most of the entries are already 1-3 paragraph summaries, and with the exception of The Mule, who's a very major character none take up more than one screen of space. Many of them are grounded in the real world by explicitly referencing the books they appear in or the inspiration for their character. There is a section at the top that deals with sources, including an academic one, discussing the characters as a whole. Definitely needs improvement, but not unsalvageable to the point of TNT. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any fixable issues are not a reason for deletion. Dege31 (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. A few of the sub-entries could be WP:TNT deleted, but many of them definitely should not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:56, 21 October 2021 (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.