Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abyssal Exalted

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. Clearly fails the notability requirements of WP:FICT. ChrisO 21:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssal Exalted

These non-notable fictional characters from a role playing game are the basis for a synthesis of plot summaries and original research which are devoid of analysis, discussion of context or secondary sources. The following articles are included in this nomination:

Note that notability is not inherited from the game Exalted from which the characters are derived. --Gavin Collins 09:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete as failing the notability requirements in WP:Fiction#Defining_notability_for_fiction. These are in-game characters that will never have reliable third-party verifyability. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Freedom Stone uses these characters to great effect. --Master Forcide 05:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps but the website/blog of a person who describes herself as Rachel "Rai" Witter is 21 years old, and loves World of Warcraft, puppies, her boyfriend, and playing Exalted is hardly a reliable source - Peripitus (Talk) 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki or Merge back into article on game. Big difference between hosting an infinite number of lengthy pages about every character in a work of fiction and just hosting a list of Exalted characters. That said, someone's obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to create these and the others that were brought up in the earlier AfD. It would make a lot of sense to just encourage the author to transwiki to a new Wikia. MrZaius^talk 10:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There is already an Exalted wiki. Fee Fi Foe Fum 12:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There are numerous pages on characters less notable than these; I fail to see why these should be singled out. --124.254.124.50 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is more grounds for calling out the other non-notable content in AfD than a defense for this content. That said, if there's already an Exalted Wiki, transwiki's making more and more sense, assuming there's some data here that's not duplicated. MrZaius^talk 12:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the Exalted main page. Web Warlock 14:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist separately These articles should be judged on their individual merits. While I agree that some of these articles can and should be merged with existing articles, I do not believe that an appropriate decision can be made that would apply to all of these articles at once; the notability of the Dragon Kings and the Solar Exalted cannot be compared, and their only connection with the Abyssal Exalted is their shared source in the Exalted setting. --Master Forcide 05:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Cannot be compared" how? They look nearly identical to the uninitiated. Each of these makes no strong case for note, each of these is written in an excessively in-universe tone, etc. Normally not a big fan of these bulk AfDs, but this is a case where it certainly does seem warranted. MrZaius^talk 07:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply To clarify for the uninitiated, the Solar Exalted are the default main characters, with the core book focusing on them, as well as a series of books dedicated to fleshing out each of the castes; the Dragon Kings are a footnote, never really given substantial coverage in the first edition of the game, and have barely been mentioned in any book published for the second edition. Hence my comment. I agree that most of these articles need work. --Master Forcide 08:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All All of these articles are quite useful, have extensive information, and are articulate and well thought out. There is no real reason to delete them, neither notability (as the game is quite popular, and well known) nor any lack of quality or encyclopedic information. Furthermore the concept of lumping several pages together in one deletion should seem unwise, if not illogical, to most observers and certainly does to me.18-Till-I-Die 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually standard practice. There are a number of Star Trek and Star Wars races and characters, for instance, that are far more well known than these, but still are only covered on lists of those characters and races because they aren't notable outside of the field. None of the articles above (when I reviewed them and said Transwiki or Merge above) make any assertion at all to notability outside of Exalted, or any WP:RS. MrZaius^talk 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn minor characters of a genre fails WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:N a list of these is fine but not each merits its own article. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. Much of the rest of Category:Exalted should probably go too. Percy Snoodle 09:42, 3 October 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.