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, which defaults to keep. (Very nearly keep, but several of the keep arguments do not clearly relate to policy.) A discussion of the merits of a merge may appropriately take place in article talk space, as set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turaga (Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article suffers from an endless number of problems, all stemming from its lack of any notability that can be established through reliable sourcing. As such, it is just a repetition of plot information from various Bionicle media, and is already covered in the various Bionicle articles. As such, this is duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Bionicle#Story.--TBC!?! 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Judge. No assertion of real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If someone who knows nothing about Bionicle is trying to use Wikipedia to learn about it, and sees these characters mentioned on other pages but there is no page on any of them, they will be unsatisfied and Wikipedia will have failed its function of being a complete and comprehensive information source.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they were looking for that, they would only need to look in the plot section of whatever media they appeared, such as the movie articles or video game articles where those articles will discuss it. Independent notability, meaning a character having its own article, requires many reliable sources and this article has none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appropriate break-out articles on characters are acceptable also, though they should probably be merged. Propose a merge, not a deletion.DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that a "Characters of Bionicle" article would be notable either, so merge would probably not be appropriate either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - wasting AFD time with an editorial discussion - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only editorial decision that should be made is an administrator hitting the "delete" button, as article improvement doesn't take place with non notable topics, just deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, they appear to be notable fictional characters and several articles redirect to this one. --Pixelface (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or add to a general list of Bionicle characters due to notability and verfiability as will encyclopedic interest, i.e. per Wikipedia:Five pillars such articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Yes, such published encyclopedias actually exist. Best,--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have given is no indication of real world notability, and is probably just a fan encyclopedia that is in universe and lacking any creation info. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment in other similar AfD's: this book is written by a LEGO employee who has also created the Bionicle novels, so it is not independent at all, and can not be used to establish notability. Fram (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does demonstrate that the topic is encyclopedic. Plus, plenty of Google hits for the character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 13 March 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.