Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Guenzel


 * 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   merge, though to where and to what extent is left up to article editors. Characters of Oz is the most likely extant target. Skomorokh 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam Guenzel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - non-notable fictional character, article fails WP:PLOT since it is nothing but an unreferenced plot summary. Otto4711 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a notable fictional character that passes WP:PLOT due to non-plot elements referenced in published books and so per WP:PRESERVE, Merge and delete, WP:BEFORE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Characters from multi-season shows with DVD releases on a major network that are indeed covered across multiple paragraphs in an analytical fashion in published books meet our inclusion criteria in some capacity.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect Merge to the LOC. This is a mere plot summary vehicle which can be easily accommodated at Characters_of_Oz. In fact, the entire series has extensive character fancruft that could usefully be redirect to the LOC for the same reason. Eusebeus (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT, a non-academic nonsense non-term, is never a valid reason for deletion and not one taken seriously. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...says an essay which some people quote as if it was the ultimate policy, but which is not commonly accepted at all. Fancruft is Wikipedia jargon for a very real type of content, and describes a serious problem many fiction-related (or pop culture related) articles have. In cases where fancruft is the only way an article can have content besides things taken from primary sources, it is a good reason for deletion and is taken serious. In this case, there are some minor secondary sources, which can easily be integrated in a list of characters entry, so a merge is the best solution for this article. Fram (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fram that Fancruft in this context usually means material that belongs only on a fan wiki, or that nobody but a dedicated fan would care about. But for a popular show, information about significant characters would be something relevant to any viewer. Details about every conceivable aspect of a minor character is on the other hand the sort of thing that belongs elsewhere. Personally, I consider this considerably above that standard. But it's a very crude & personal standard, and does reduce to IDONTTHINKITBELONGSHERE vs  IDOTHINKITBELONGSHERE, and we can exchange those slogans indefinitely without helping reach a conclusion or compromise.    DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * merge to a combination article, keeping a good deal of the content. The obvious compromise. I suggested that when I deprodded the article, but it wasn't taken up. I don't like to do it myself when its a question of fiction I'm not familiar with -- I might miss the key points. There would certainly be reason for at the very least a redirect, so a straight delete is wholly inappropriate, and there is no reason given why. I'd say Merge, not redirect, because there presently is no material at all on this character   in the combination article. Eusubeus, didn't youy even check that?    DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support that and the best thing would be not to resolve this at AfD but through a centralised discussion at the LOC on a general merge of all character articles to a primary and secondary list article. I have amended my vote in this particular instance per your argument, which is reasonable. As for the term fancruft, I can't be bothered replying to Nobody's mindless pinpricks. Reasonable editors know what is meant by the term. Eusebeus (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Or merge.  But there isn't enough grist for the mill vis a vis coverage.  Some exists, because Oz is fodder for lit crit. analysis, but what limited information exists there doesn't align at all w/ the likely outcome of the article: a largely unreferenced plot recapitulation. Protonk (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to an appropriate chracter list. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.