Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antroz (Bionicle 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 no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. A discussion of the merits of a merge, or the proper target of same, may appropriately take place in article talk space, as set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Antroz (Bionicle Character)

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of this characters appearances in various Bionicle media. It lacks notability and referencing, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bionicle.-- TBC !?!  20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No assertion of significance. Eusebeus (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete any article that begins: "Makuta Antroz leads the Makuta to invade Karda Nui, in order to control Mata Nui's situation and prevent the creation of any more Toa of Light by turning Av-Matoran into Shadow Matoran." AndyJones (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Eklipse (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep appropriate break-out articles on characters are acceptable also, though in cases like this they should probably be merged. Propose a merge, not a deletion. DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that a "Characters of Bionicle" article would be notable either, so merge would probably not be appropriate either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or add to a general list of Bionicle characters due to notability and verfiability as will encyclopedic interest, i.e. per Five pillars such articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Yes, such published encyclopedias actually exist.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The link you have given is no indication of real world notability, and is probably just a fan encyclopedia that is in universe and lacking any creation info. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and start a merge discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With no assertion of notability for either this article or a characters of bionicle article, why would we do that? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you should be able to find plenty of reviews online of the book I linked to. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Random google searches are wholly insufficient, and even just showing us external links to things that are reliable sources doesn't cut it either. If you have reliable information, it MUST be added to the article, then we have established notability. That is true with this AFD, and all that are in the past or future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources exist, as they do in this case, in the form of the published Bionicle encyclopedia, then we should keep the article until someone can add the information to the article, because we know the evidence is indeed out there. Since we know it exists, and because Wikipedia does not have a deadline, we can allow our editors time to locate the book (obviously if I linked to it, that means I don't just have it on hand and say even if I were to order it from Amazon.com, I'm not going to have it today or something, but that does not mean I or somebody won't have it eventually and when one of us does have it cannot be used).  The google search demonstrates that references and reviews even exist for the encyclopedia, which indicates that it has notability and I figure it would be easier to demonstrate that with the link rather than posting some lengthy list of references that could clutter this discussion.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The "reliable source" mentioned by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is a book written by the author of the Bionicle novels and comics. From the Greg Farshtey page: "He is currently employed as the Editor in Chief for the Community Education Direct division of the LEGO Company.". This is definitely not an independent source, and thus does not indicate any notability. Notability comes from other people, from other companies (or not affiliated with any company) writing about a subject: not a book written by an employee of the company that produces the toys. That the book itself is somewhat notable is irrelevant when it is not independent of the subject. Fram (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We use BOTH primary and secondary sources. A published source is entirely reliable even if as a primary source and the fact that it is an encyclopedia demonstrates the topic's encyclopedic value.  Moreover, as for notability, the character certainly passes the google test.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are aware that the Google test is not a part of WP:NOTE? Popularity or number of Ghits do not indicate notability. As for your source being an "encyclopedia"... well, in name only. An encyclopedia is a third party source, this is a first party source, a work of fiction disguised as non-fiction. Fram (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the Google test itself, it's what found in the search, i.e. that the character appears in multiple mediums (published, and toys, etc.) If the book is an encyclopedia by title then it's an encyclopedia, in fact a specialized encylopedia and consistent with the First pillar.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "If a book is an encyclopedia by title then it's an encyclopedia"? No, not really. Philippe Geluck's Encyclopédie Universelle would not be a very good source for anything, and the Discworld Encyclopedia by Terry Pratchett is not really what Wikipedia aims to be either. In the same category as the Bionicle Encyclopedia, we find the Faerie Encyclopedia... We do strive to be an Encyclopedia Galactica, but that doesn't make the earlier one any more useful as a source for Wikipedia, even though it was shown on the BBC. Fram (talk) 09:01, 14 March 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.