Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviendha


 * 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. Redirected following deletion. The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Aviendha

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This fictional character has (a) no assertion of notability, and (b) no reliable or in-depth third party references to support its content. If this character is deleted, I will also make a bundled deletion proposal for Supporting Characters in Template:Wotnav Exeva (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I am certainly sympathetic to this nomination; there are overtones of WP:Cruft here and all these supporting character articles could use a good paring, I think.  I thought the most appropriate comparator would be the Harry Potter series, which is somewhat analogous in size and complexity -- although I suspect that the WoT series in total is much larger.  Harry Potter pages are in place for "major characters" like Severus Snape but supporting characters, some 40 of them, are relegated to a single long page; I think this is a good analogy for the notability question posed by the nominator in that a handful of characters are notable and dozens of others are not.  The trouble is that the WoT series is so immense that a character like Aviendha actually appears on the same number of pages (or has the same number of words written about her) as would be appropriate for the protagonist of a single "regular" novel.  Thus I suspect that if one created a page for Supporting characters in the WoT series it would be massively unwieldy.  The existing situation, with sub-pages and a navbox, seems like a reasonable compromise for utility to me; to continue the analogy to Harry Potter, I think there are a dozen or so major characters and -- good heavens, hundreds of supporting characters.  I think the third-party references can be solved by pointing all such pages to a "companion" volume such as The World of Robert Jordan's the Wheel of Time by Jordan himself -- doubtless there are others, or there will be once the series is complete.  And notability -- well, volumes 8 through 13 of the series have all spent time at #1 on the NYT best-seller list.  Certainly some of the characters are notable, and I suggest that the supporting character listing in the navbox is a reasonable take on inherent notability.  Ubelowme (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A note on your later arguments: yes, Wheel of Time has been a New York Times #1 best selling, but no, notability is not inherited. Unless there is some independent claim to notability (eg critics talking about how Aviendha has influenced female characters in fantasy) the character does not merit an article. As for the question of which of the dozens of characters listed there deserve documentation, and how they should be organized: that belongs to a later AfD. this is about Aviendha. 98.216.136.159 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. These points are why I went to Harry Potter for a model;  I don't notice anything in Severus Snape about how he is or isn't a role model for teacher characters in fantasy, except comments by the author herself, not critics.  I have to think that this is how Wikipedia treats such huge-scale literary efforts; my assessment is that characters in such notable literature do indeed inherit notability.  There are reliable sources, I think, that at least catalogue the same level of detail I see here.  With respect to the dozens of characters point -- I note that the AfD's initiator said specifically that s/he intends to make a bundled deletion proposal, so I rather thought that was on the table for discussion.  Ubelowme (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (and to answer Ubelowme's comments) The general notability guideline requires the topic to have been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable, third party, independent sources", and as far as I can see it's not the case (and The World of Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time being a primary source written by Jordan and his editors, does not qualify as such), so the topic is not notable and can't be a stand-alone article. As 98.216.136.159 pointed out, no, notability is not inherited, notability is only shown through independent coverage, that the books are notable or popular doesn't make the characters suitable for stand-alone articles, only independent coverage does ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition"). The difference with an article like Severus Snape, since it was mentionned as an example, is that the character does have external coverage of some sort from critics. If someone wants to make something like "List of characters in the WoT", why not, but I personally don't really see the point of such article, the plot section of the series article, and the plot summaries for each of the books, are already enough to keep track of plot and characters, no need to be redundant in a "List of...", which is why I will support the nominator's plan of nominating more WoT characters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or at least merge. Eeekster (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT ? If you don't justify your recommendation, it won't be taken into account.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  02:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * don't delete redirecting or merging might make sense, but per WP:PRESERVE there is no reason to delete here. Didn't research sources to see if the GNG could be met.  Hobit (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:PRESERVE does not concern this Afd. I am not proposing deletion because anything in *Aviendha* needs fixing, but because I question the subject's notability. That is, whatever great effort might be invested in it, I still believe it deserves deletion. Exeva (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But we should at least end up with a redirect, yes? There is no need for deletion here. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. With zero third-party references after several weeks on AfD, it is very unlikely that the topic meets the "substantial third-party coverage" requirement of WP:GNG.  Sandstein   07:22, 14 July 2012 (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.