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 no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussions to the appropriate talk page(s). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selene (Underworld)

[edit]

These articles on fictional characters do not satisfy WP:WAF criteria, as the only content comes from primary sources (the films themselves), where WP:WAF dictates that secondary sources are required to explore these topics in a real-world context. Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet WP:WAF criteria, either:

Keep. This problem should be fixed, rather than deleting the article. This character is the major character of a film series (not restricted to just one film), and therefore should have an article per WP:FICT. JulesH 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest of the characters? Everything is written with solely primary sources, with no assertion of notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. OK, so keep Selene. Perhaps other major characters (e.g. Lucian ... not sure, it's been a while since I saw the first film, and I haven't seen the second one, so I'm not certain I can easily judge which characters are important). The other characters should be merged per the responses below. Vampire (Underworld) and Lycan should probably be kept, as I don't really see an appropriate target for them: being concepts rather than characters, they wouldn't find into a character list page. JulesH 16:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary yes Notabilty is not right, as it's from a well known film --Nate1481(^t/_c)

The vampire, lycan and hybrid items could easily be presented in a Races of Underworld universe page. I don't think that there is anything which meets the WP:WAF criteria which would justify anything more about them. Actually, the details could probably be incorporated into the film articles where each detail is revealed. Slavlin 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Races of Underworld universe Sound fair. I think incorporating details into the main article would overly elongate the plot section and reduce the quality there, as well as making the info less accessible. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a single List of Underworld (film) characters per WP:FICT. Otto4711 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If there were more movies or a large body of fiction related to these characters, I don't see why all of the details could not be moved under a character list. Also, don't forget the Lycan and Vampire (Underworld) pages. They need some work or merging too. Slavlin 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge The types of vampire; elder, death dealer, can easily be merge into one, Lycan, could possibly be merged in there too, the characters should be merged to List of Underworld (film) characters as there is repeat info, there are novelizations referenced on one of them. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Underworld (series): The film series isn't that popular, nor that expansive. Alientraveller 16:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only because a merged article will be nominated for deletion six months down the line and deleted. Happens too often for my tastes. —Xezbeth 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So what you are saying is that, you would rather keep them separate so that people don't find that it should be deleted? If it reaches consensus, would that not mean it needs to be deleted? Basically, what you are saying is keep it so it doesn't get deleted, which is not much of an argument against it. Slavlin 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge is the same as keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Combine combat technology in Half-Life 2 for an example of what I mean. That was a split from the parent article rather than a merge, but it comes down to the same thing. If the entries on that page were separate articles rather than bunched together, they would likely have never been nominated for deletion. In the likely event that you think I'm talking rubbish, bear in mind that merges can happen without involving AfD. —Xezbeth 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If a set of articles, either separate or combined into one article, cannot survive an AfD discussion, I have to say that having them merged or split should not be relevant to the discussion. Slavlin 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see them merged and then considered, than killed off en bloc and then have people trying to sneak them back until forever. If a post-merge Afd arises, we can "vote" again. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information but reorganize. I'll leave that job to the editors who are more familiar with the topic. CaveatLector^Talk 22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would be tempted to support the concept of merging.... but then I read Xezbeth's comment. Maybe better idea to outright support keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Xezbeth's comment does not argue any basis for keeping the articles which has anything to do with Wikipedia's guidelines or principles. Not merging or deleting a set of articles because they might be deleted, after achieving a consensus to do so, really hits a ton of the criticisms of Wikipedia. Slavlin 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you even realize that the articles are blatant violations of WP:WAF? Someone basically watched the films and wrote about the characters in excess detail about them. They didn't use any independent, secondary sources to either provide notability or real-world context. The fancruftish articles have been in this shape for a long time, and they're not going to change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you actually, but I have seen it become very difficult to have an article deleted based on the fact that no sources were used. I really think that merging is the most likely option to reach consensus. Slavlin 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the whole 'other stuff exists'(I will not mention pokemon...) argument, I do feel that combing the characters & abbreviating the entries, with the broader plot material transferred to the series, article would be the best result, which is what is suggested at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It's excessive to have individual articles for minor characters (from my pov Selene is a major character as lead & narrator but not going to argue it) but unless it's original research derived from them,primary sources for fiction aren't that bad, a majority of novel and film articles are only primary sourced with the odd interview if you lucky.

Random thoughts- Primary sources are not the best but are still sources. You could argue the the primary source would be the script or writers imagination of the story, and the film is reporting that, I'm not claiming this is an accurate interpretation, but the point is that it is factual, published, material, so is referable to and not subject to change. An autobiography of individual is an acceptable source at some level & this is a similar concept. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these would have to be recreated if there was a third movie in the series. GoldDragon 04:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the consensus is ultimately to merge to something like List of Underworld characters, what should be the extent of the fictional background for each character? Like I've said, the only information provided about them is from the primary sources of the films, so there's no notability or real-world context provided. Technically a merge is to keep, but elsewhere, but are the people here recommending for every word in each character article to be kept? I was trying to imagine a character list with more succinct summaries for each one, but the idea of merging doesn't necessarily imply this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda coved this above, general stuff present in all should be put in the series article, character specifics, descriptions etc should be grouped in list or would putting death dealer/elder characters, etc as parts of the appropriate article be sensible? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - These characters should be listed at List of Underworld film characters. Most are extremely non-notable. Selene could easily be notable is someone could find some reliable sources asserting the notability. Everyone else should be in one list that contains all of them. People are going to want to see it, no matter how unencyclopedic most others deem it. Since Wikipedia is about quality, and not quantity, I would much rather see one poorly cited, in-universe stricken article than 17 individual articles that suffer from the same plague. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Been bold & created Races of Underworld universe Mentioned above is only marginly bettern then having cut & pasted the whole articles (where I started from) will need shortening for overlap but would this seem reasonable? If not add it to the list. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles got put in there? Just the Vampires and Lycon articles? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those and with the elder & death dealer ones integrated in to vamp section, possibly badly. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That takes care of 4 articles. That leaves 13 characters, only one of which could every possible assert any notability in the long run. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Purely in-universe, and unsourced from and unnotable to the outside world. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uses almost exclusicely primary sourcing but most of what I read was written largely out of universe, referring to the films and novalisations not written form an internal perspective.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I won't harp on the fact that WP:WAF is possibly the most idiotic policy on the wiki, except to say that the list of articles that would need to get purged if we actually enforced that policy would be in the thousands, and would eliminate a major reason Wikipedia is superior to a real encyclopedia. Instead, I'll merely agree the articles should be fixed, not thrown out, just because some policy pinhead can't figure out a better way to write them. Kutulu

- Comment - Kutulu, perhaps you could talk the "policy pinheads" into changing the policy if you were to call them something besides pinheads. BTW- I signed your post for you so that all the pinheads would know who was calling them that. Slavlin 14:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corvinus Strain should also be merged to Races of Underworld universe. JulesH 07:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Bignole Harlowraman 00:12, 9 August 2007 (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.