Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Rivera


 * 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   Redirect to List of The Clique series characters to satify the concerns both that this information is worthwhile of inclusion and that is inadequately sourced. There will probably be ongoing problems maintaining the already-large target article, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. brenneman 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alicia Rivera

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

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:FICT and WP:N in having no significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Failed PROD with PROD removed by IP with edit summary of "deleted unnecessary things." -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - seriously fails WP:FICT and WP:N per Collectonian's reasoning.  Greg  Jones   II  01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This character is apparently fairly popular and heavily discussed. 8000 Ghits for ' "Alicia Rivera" Clique' Lots of book reviews, and a lot of discussion.  Major character of a NYT top 3 (in it's catagory) series.   That it is targeted to 11 year old girls might mean that most of us haven't heard of it... Hobit (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the series notability. But the notability of the character itself. Being a major character in the series does not meet WP:FICT. She must have extensive, significant coverage in reliable third party sources herself, enough that a reasonable out-of-universe article discussing creation/conception and reception of the character alone, not the series, can be created. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the reviews spend all their time discussing the main characters. And I'll disagree about the out-of-universe part.  WP:FICT isn't relevant as no one can agree to it, and even if it was policy it would still have us keep things if they meet WP:N. There are clearly plenty of reliable sources that discuss the character in an in-universe way.  Admittedly that discussion is fairly weak among the reliable sources (non-blog reviews), but quite significant in the non-RSs (huge amounts of discussion on blogs, youtube, etc.)  Thus my weak support.   Hobit (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if people want to argue FICT and try to say it doesn't apply because people are keeping it in contention to be pointy, the major points of it are still relevant as it simply summaries WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT and WP:OR and WP:WAF. In-universe violates multiple other guidelines and policies, and non-RS discussion is completely irrelevant as they can not be used in articles anyway. A big plot summary that just repeats what is already in the individual articles and the series article is pointless and redundant. If the character article fails all relevant guidelines, it should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I disagree across the board. WP:FICT isn't official because it lacks anything resembling consensus. They've worked long and hard, but the document is still poor.  And I'm unaware of anything else which states that something with RS that otherwise meets WP:N isn't an acceptable topic for an article because the references all deal with the topic "in universe". Hobit (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, FICT was an official guideline until this BS started in the last few months to try to get rid of it by constantly contesting it by inclusionists who somehow think getting rid of it will save all the cruft articles. That aside, this article doesn't meet WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:OR, nor WP:WAF which are not contested and are official. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The books are best sellers, and this is a main character from those novels. Other best selling novels have pages for their characters.  I did some Googling for the sales figures, and found one of the books mentioned at Publisher Weekly.  http://www.publishersweekly.com/enewsletter/CA6516395/2788.html indicating the 9th book in the series had sold 300,000 copies.  I'm not certain where to find the total sales figures of a book at, but surely this indicates they are bestsellers, and thus by wikipedian standards the main characters from them have the right to their own article. Dream Focus (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your last statement will be heavily refuted because it builds on the concept of inherited notability.

Question: How can you decide if its noteworthy if you don't know how popular the books which feature this character are? Shouldn't there be a rule about sales figures somewhere? You have comic book characters that have their own wikipedia pages, no matter how minor a role they appeared in anything. And forget about inherit nobility since that isn't the case here. The character's description shows she to be a main character in all of these novels. If the books are all bestsellers, then all main characters get their own pages. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/books/bestseller/0622bestchildren.html?scp=1&sq=The+Clique+Lisi+Harrison&st=nyt The New York Times bestsellers list currently shows these books to be at the top 1, 6, and 8 spots in the paperback section! I vote keep, of course. Dream Focus (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Clique series, allowing the merger of bits and pieces for interested parties. No demonstration of notability or reliable real-world information (see WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:RS/WP:OR), but per the popularity of the books I do not totally exclude the possibility to make a decent subsection out of this, or that it can serve as a search term. – sgeureka t•c 10:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree completely with nom. Non-notable fictional character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree as well. Eusebeus (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is, and as WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM are weak reasons to delete. Also, it is hard to "fail" the heavily disputed and still under consideration fictional guideline.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Traffic stats and a Google search aren't good rationales for keeping. Besides, this article fails WP:N, which isn't disputed.  --Phirazo 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are better rationales for keeping that the reasons presented for deleting. This article passes our notability guidelines, which are indeed disputed (look at the talk pages).  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they don't, that isn't how it works. The series having high sales does not automatically make all of its characters notable. If the characters are not significantly covered in reliable sources, and just mentioned in passing when discussing the series as a whole, they do not get an article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gandalf, Bilbo Baggins, Luke Skywalker, and even Ellcrys the tree that never said anything only existed in two novels in the Shannara series, get their own pages. Jerle Shannara is only in one novel and gets her own page.  Galactus had a guardian robot called Punisher who got its own page, along with countless others.  You can't accept the same exact thing for Fantasy and Science Fiction genres, but discriminate against whatever this girl social interaction story genre is called. Dream Focus (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gandalf, Bilbo Baggins, and Luke Skywalker are all major characters with tons of real world coverage. For the rest, people making inappropriate character articles is NOT an excuse to make more. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The threshold of inclusion for fictional characters is significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not the popularity of the work. Articles are easy to create, so many articles are created that shouldn't be.  Besides, none of the characters from The Clique have the iconic status of Luke Skywalker or Bilbo Baggins. --Phirazo 03:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:FICT and WP:N. No real world information but the actor's name. No media coverage. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This shows absolutely no potential to obtain any real world information, so it has no need to exist. TTN (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon? Considering she's a main character in 16 novels and (eventually) a film, I'm not sure where you got your crystal ball from.  Ford MF (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As has already been shown in this discussion, it can't really fail the not passed and highly contested still be edited fiction guideline. Moreover, she has been covered in the media and therefore the article need only be developed further.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, isn't there a list of characters that she can be merged to? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only list for the major characters seems to be in The Clique series. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 09:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then redirect it there. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, on account of being a main character in sixteen novels and a movie. Although I'd be a happier chappie if I, or anybody else, could find any independent sources.  Ford MF (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources, no demonstration of notability in the real world. --Phirazo 03:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources have been presented that demonstrate notability in the real world. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cite the sources, then. --Phirazo 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just look in the above discussion. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Collectonian has provided sound reasoning, which I agree with. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since her reasoning, however, the article has been improved. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep When I first saw the article, I felt like voting delete. However, after doing some research, I changed my mind. Alicia Rivera is a character in 16 novels and an upcoming film. The article passes WP:FICT. Sources presented above demonstrate notability. The revision history of Alicia Rivera shows that many people have contributed for this article. In fact, the article was created on June 21, 2006. Deleting this article can undo years of work by several editors. The articles has some flaws, but it will be better to develop this article instead of deleting it. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, people will often put effort into articles that are inappropriate for Wikipedia. This does excuse them from the notability and verifiability requirements of Wikipedia.  Elements of fiction should be relevant to the real-world, and this article shows no real-world relevance. --Phirazo 01:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't relevant to people in the real world, no one would create, work on, or argue to keep the articles in question. Fictional characters, familiar to millions of people, in general touch and influence people in profound ways.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My dog is relevant to me in the real world, but she doesn't rate her own Wikipedia article. If the character in question has touched and influenced so many people, than sourcing should be easy. However, no outside sources have been given, other than sales figures for the books, which aren't useful in building an article.  The only source for this article are the books themselves and contributors' own analysis of the novels. --Phirazo 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, my dog is also notable to me, but anyway, it's apples and oranges. Our pets are not featured in a fictional media that is familiar to thousands or millions of people.  The reliable sources are reviews of the books or interviews with the author that can provide the out of universe context.  You can help by adding such sources to the article.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment at the very least, merge. If the movie is even vaguely popular, this will be coming back.  No reason to lose the edit history or go to DRV at that point. Hobit (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep as a major character in significant fiction. that's enough justification, as argued above by various people. DGG (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is significant enough coverage for an article on Wikipedia. For example, she is the titular character of a New York Times best seller book and so we can use reviews of that book to expand the article. If nothing else, such characters can be merged and redirected without deletion. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:45, 2 July 2008 (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.