Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy character

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy character

Delete unsourced subjective article that at least verges on OR. Either it's OR in which case it doesn't belong or it's a dictionary entry in which case it doesn't belong here. I removed the list of examples because it was unsourced opinion. Wryspy 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. There do not appear to be reliable sources that are about this term; rather, there are a lot of blogs and message boards which simply use the term. Note that if this is deleted then Category:Legacy characters should also go. Otto4711 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term seems to be in wide use within the comic book industry, and is certainly an encyclopedic topic. Sources that appear to be reliable which discuss the topic and could be used to fix lack-of-source issues include: [1] (author is a professional animator and animation teacher, so qualifies as an established expert per WP:V) [2] (published by MIT) [3] (professionally published magazine site). JulesH 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are blogs and so are almost by definition disqualified from being reliable sources. The third uses the word "legacy" a number of times (didn't notice if the exact phrase "legacy character" appeared) but it does not appear to be about the term "legacy character." Sources that use the term are not enough. They have to be about the term. Otto4711 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a blog is "by definition" disqualified from being reliable, you're using a strange definition. Certainly one that isn't supported by WP:V. The first is written by an undisputed expert on the subject matter, so qualifies under the self publishing exemption in that policy. The second is not self-published, so is not automatically ruled out, and I would say being published by a world-renowned university gives it some credibility. The third may not be about the "term" legacy character, but it is clearly about the same concept (even to the point of discussing the same characters, the Flash and Green Lantern, that are primarily used as examples in the article), and as wikipedia is not a dictionary we shouldn't be looking for articles about the term anyway. JulesH 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V#SELF: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. (emphasis added) It goes on to say that such sources may be acceptable if the self-publisher has previously been established as an expert and had relevant work published in reliable third party sources. No evidence has been offered here that Mark Mayerson qualifies under that guideline. Regardless, it is irrelevant whether he does or not, because the post at the other end of your link is not discussing legacy characters as defined in the Wikipedia article. It is discussing comic strip and animated characters (not comic book characters) who continue to be published after their creator dies. The second source also does not discuss second-generation comic book characters but instead defines "legacy character" in terms of soap operas and professional wrestling as characters that have been around but out of the spotlight, not new charcters based on old ones. The third source may indeed be published under the auspices of a professional magazine, but considering it has a factual error in its very first sentence I question its reliability and even if it is reliable it is not an article about the term "legacy character." You are correct that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why under WP:NEO we should not have articles like Legacy character in the absence of reliable third party sources that are specifically about the term rather than just using the term. Otto4711 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this term doesn't appear to be notable enough, nor verifiable enough for an article. If other (and better) sources can be found, I'll definately reconsider. --Android Mouse 22:23, 14 July 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.