Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odessa (Wild Arms 2)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Lack of reliable secondary sources is fatal. No prejudice against redirect and will userify on request for a prospective merge. — Coren (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa (Wild Arms 2)

[edit]
Odessa (Wild Arms 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No sources in the article whatsoever. Google has a few hits, but they are either unreliable self-published sources, or trivial mentions of the subject that cannot allow us to verify the article's massive contents. Randomran (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable, third-party sources can be found to satisty WP:GNG for every object. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MuZemike (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Deletion sounds like the appropriate response, but I think redirecting it to List of Wild Arms 2 characters is a reasonable compromise. However, should the article pop up again in a similar format—with no references and too many non-free images—then deletion sounds like the best course. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced by independent references (WP:V), no assertion of notability has been made (WP:N), fails our writing about fiction guidelines (WP:WAF) with respect to out-of-universe context. Marasmusine (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. It also appears to be original research based on primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't cite reliable, independent sources, as required by WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, are all five of you the same person using different accounts or is it just a coincidence that I sense the same air of robotic, thoughtless personalities from those replies? Someone just end this so I can merge the article without being nagged at by template messages on my talk page. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:CIVIL. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. We all happen to have the relatively widely held opinion that articles need to have at least "some" secondary sourcing. It isn't thoughtless, but it is a little robotic. After the 400th time you say it, you still...have to say it. Articles will continue to be created that are outside the community's desired goals and we will continue to have these discussions. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never objected to the article's deletion, it just really irks me that when something's been said so many times by so many other people already in the exact same manner, they could at least have the decency to change their wording and/or offer an actual, constructive opinion on the subject in question instead of slapping it with a copy/pasted comment from a dozen other unrelated discussions. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't copied and pasted. The article doesn't cite a single source. We require that it cite several. there aren't too many different ways to show that, and after the 50th time of saying it, you run out of interest in changing it just to be clever. If the situation were different from most other times, what I write would be different. If something is repeated AfD to AfD without regard for how it actually relates to the discussion at hand, that is copy/pasted. In this case, these people are chiming in so that we don't somehow mistake the discussion here as "no consensus". And as for the "constructive opinion", what constructive opinion would you have me offer about this article? Protonk (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically it is if there is a lack of reliable independent sources. Just to clarify, I'm still in favor of a selective merge and redirect. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Doctorfluffy did not invoke WP:JNN. He was verbose, as that essay suggests one should be. Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can sum that edit up as essentially arguing the subjective "not notable," when it is obviously notable to those who created, worked on, and read the article, i.e. people who leave in the real world. Given the RfC over notability that shows a total lack of consensus when it comes to fictional notability and spinoff articles, it seems questionable. A simple Google search suggests that it can be verified as well in reviews of the game, which means coverage in independent sources. Now what is and is not "significant" is something that is again subjective as argued as demonstrated by the lack of consensus in the RfC on notability an other similar discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can sum that edit as "not notable", but that would ignore the reasoning listed for that statement.
            And while notability is subjective to an extent, Wikipedia is concerned with the notability demonstrated by the existence of reliable and independent sources making note of topic. Unfortunately, our perception of notability as editors and readers is not part of the equation at WP:N.
            I would also like to point out that the number of google results is misleading as most link to website user reviews, product listings, and pages for other uses of "odessa". (Guyinblack25 talk 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
            • Feh, Wikipedia's concept of "it may be relevant to the interests of many people and is an important sub-topic of a major subject, but it's not actually notable enough to be read on our nonscholarly internet quick reference site unless an irrelevant fanboy writer on IGN says something about it" notability is pretty asinine. It's somewhat pointless to discuss that here though anyway since this is really a MoS-related deletion and not a notablity one, seeing as the core information's notable enough to be kept but it's pointless to have its own article(this article was actually made more than a year before the main character list IIRC). Someone end this already. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:18, 5 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odessa_(Wild_Arms_2)&oldid=1138178858"