Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azkadellia


 * 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Azkadellia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Created page for a fictional character from the new Tin Man (TV miniseries) that is completely unnotable and total plot regurgitation. Completely unnecessary POV fork. Collectonian 15:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. I actually agree with everything the nominator said, and normally would vote delete, but the Afd tag was placed after the author had posted an under construction tag, and the article had existed for less than an hour when tagged. I actually encourage the author to look long and hard at editing the the Tin Man article (currently semi-protected), because I think it will be difficult to create a separate article that survives. Xymmax 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect the main reason this article was created is as a POV fork because multiple editors already said that discussion of any ties to the Wizard of Oz should go in production details and must be cited, instead of being viewer/editor guesses in the character sections. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, the editor who made it seems extremely inexperienced and may simply have not realized that character articles are strongly discouraged. He also first made Azkadellia the Sorceress which now redirects to Azkadellia (and is the main reason I didn't just redirect back to Tin Man, as I believe double redirects are considered bad?).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My rationale is just that Azkadellia is arguably the only main character who is not a clearly identifiable analogue of a Wizard of Oz character (in which case I agree that the material should go under "modern versions" of the existing page for the book character). Having read some of the rationale for reversion of "unsourced" associations between the Wizard of Oz and Tin Man, I would aver that it will be straightforward in the long run to get citations.  In answer to Xymmax, I have read the Talk page for Tin Man, and I would say that if we are all waiting for the writers and Sci-Fi to make a definitive statement about parallels, we're naturally not going to get an assertion that everything is completely deriviative, but that there are many credible published reviews (modulo Wikipedia policy) that treat this subject.  As for the redirect, if by "double" redirects you mean transitive ones (Tin Man to Azkadellia to Azkadellia the Sorceress), I would be happy to "flatten" all transitive redirects to go directly to the character page.  — Banazir 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, by double I meant going from Azkadellia the Sorceress to Azkadellia to Tin Man. Individual character articles are not encouraged nor generally notable (see WP:FICT).  It has already been said that any SOURCED parallels between the films goes in the production details, particularly when Sci-Fi and RHI have already stated quite clearly that they have mostly only made allusions to the origin, not direct parallels or direct derivatives.  Either way, any such discussion goes in the main article, and your creating this subarticle just to try to put it in, despite what is appropriate per both of the MOS that apply to this film and what more experienced editors have told you, is not appropriate. Collectonian 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So noted regarding the cycle of redirection; if consensus is that cycles such as that one are bad, that is easily corrected. I would submit (cf. WP:FICT) that "technical reasons (such as length or style)" would pertain here, especially organizational aspects of style.  There is a lot of information about this character that would clutter up a list-format section of a miniseries page.  Furthermore, I think that this page serves as a bridge between the miniseries page and that of a tangentially related character from the book and film - one that is, by contrast, not needed for the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion.  As for the fact that a work's "writers have already stated" that their re-imagining is "inspired by" and not "direct derivatives of" a work: I prefer to go by the entire body of available critical analysis (in this case, primarily consisting of professional reviews) rather than the word of the principal authors alone.  Also as Xymmax indicated, I just created this page an hour ago and have not had time to collect such sourced analyses that are not just about parallels.  More important, to finish actually constructing the page as the Under Construction tag indicates, I would add more material from interviews and regarding critical reception, which is not all out in print yet.  I would ask for time to do so, but if other editors concur that this page should be deleted in the interim, that's certainly acceptable to me.  — Banazir 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete If no sources are found over the next few days, then the article must be deleted until sources materialize. AnteaterZot 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and done: I've added two cited sources now, and will add more later. — Banazir (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now there are eight, including two press releases (from Sci Fi Wire), two press videos (from Sci Fi Pulse) with interviews, and four independent reviews including one single-part plot synopsis, two whole-series reviews, and one technical review of the CG creatures (winged monkeys or mobats). — Banazir (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, now that the film is over, it is now clear that there was no intention to make the characters "clearly identifiable analogues" of the Wizard of Oz story, but stand alone characters in a future "what happened after" type thing.  As I figured from the beginning, DG is NOT Dorothy Gale, nor are any of the others the book equivalents, but the future friends she makes along the way.  It is reminiscent of her ancestor's journey, but not the same and not meant to be.  As such, all characters should be covered properly in the film's article.  The Az article is still nothing but plot regurgitation that belongs in the main article, so I stand by my nomination. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on - have you actually looked at my recent edits? I've already corrected those points.  Furthermore, it is unarguable fact that characters in the series referred to the old woman in the cave as "the wicked witch", "the Evil Witch of the Dark", etc.  Most important, I am collecting citations for various sources (reviews of the series) that document critical reception of Azkadellia. In short, the article is about Azkadellia, and its notability and relevance should not (and does not) depend on that of the Wicked Witch of the West. — Banazir (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Many pop culture items (The Banana Splits, anyone?) have Wiki entries whether they meet the gold standard, or not. Those interested in these actors, in the network's productions, in adaptations of Baum's work, and in the genre may wish to revisit the information in this entry.-55  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.209.203 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created the page because I thought that the notability of this main antagonist character was coeval with that of the entire TV miniseries.  Now that the series has fully aired, I have corrected, fact-checked, clarified and cited information on parallels.  I have used as primary sources articles from Sci Fi and reviews (such as from TV Guide).  — Banazir  (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: FWIW, I am not seeking to assert any parallels other than what Sci Fi itself documents, and I have no wish to somehow slip any OR on parallels in "under the radar".  If the article goes against a general stylistic guideline specifying that comparisons betwen TWOO and Tin Man belong in either article, or that character parallels belong in a comparison page, then I'm happy to hold all my edits and incorporate the (sourced) material in those pages.  I do not, however, agree with any general dogmatic prohibition on forking of character pages from works of popular fiction.  IMO, WP:FICT gives enough latitude to allow pages for central characters of a film, miniseries, or book that already has its own page.
 * Similarly, as the most vocal critics of comparison of Tin Man and TWOO have themselves said, it's not a moratorium or general ban that they seek, just proper sourcing. I agree there should be no such suppressive measure.  Here is my position, for the record: I don't feel that a sourced disclaimer by the author of a work regarding derivative nature invalidates comparisons.   Current reviews in print both praise and criticize Tin Man for its departures, and they also critique parallels, particularly how Tin Man adapts character concepts from TWOO.  My view is that you can't have a complete critical review of a re-imagining without both.  Moreover, the discussion here indicates no general consensus that I can see regarding inferences that are being characterized as original research cf. WP:OR.
 * Contrary to some claims, a July preview of Tin Man at Sci Fi Wire (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=42220, cited in the primary article and this one) flatly refers to Azkadellia as "the equivalent of the Wicked Witch of the West". We can discuss whether this is accurate in light of the series itself, but it is a direct assertion in an article from the producer's news service - essentially a press release.
 * I accept that the documentation that forms the current version of the page recaps some plot information that could be put into the main page, but I think the page already contains enough character-specific material, by volume, that it would be unwieldy to try to cram it all back in.
 * — Banazir (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is only one section, portrayal & criticism, which is not pure plot regurgitation and it belongs in the main article as part of the reaction section. Even the plot stuff could go in the main article as I see no one has still bothered to finish the sections for parts 2 & 3.  There is NOTHING in this article that establishes notability apart from the film, and nit does not need to be separate from the main article.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that most of the plot details can, and should, be reabsorbed into the Part 2 and 3 plot sections for Tin Man. Critical reception of Tin Man as a whole, however, is just that - it is to be distinguished from the critical reception of the character of Azkadellia.  The latter has been written about quite a bit now, and IMO warrants its own section within a character page.   More important, though, is the organizational rationale for any character page for a recent work of popular fiction: if the character is notable in its originality, portrayal, or even departure from a better-known counterpart (in the case of re-imaginings), then a standalone page is worth having.  As a commentator (74.227.6.174) noted below, Azkadellia is distinguishable from other Tin Man characters precisely because of this degree of departure.  If you adhere to a dogmatic view that there should be no character pages for pop fiction or miniseries, period, then we will have to agree to disagree.  — Banazir (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you ever actually looked at the Film and/or TV MOS? Or the Fiction MOS in general?  Character pages are generally not appropriate and not necessary, especially for a character that appears in only a single film.   Critial reviews and what not of Az would certainly be appropriate in the character section or as part of the over all view of the film (individual performance critics are just as relevant to the film as a whole).  You have yet to establish any real notability from the character apart from the film, nor explained why you feel it doesn't belong in the Tin Man article.  The Tin Man article certainly isn't excessive in side, in fact its rather pathetic looking (and considering its new, jumping to a sub article just seems excessive to me).  AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:MOS and several of the Wikipedia essays such as WP:FICT that you cite, and that's it. Like Rickyrab in the Tin Man discussion page thread on character pages, I would appreciate a link.  FWIW, I do agree that the Tin Man article is presently pathetic-looking, but it's a matter of fleshing out the Part 2 and 3 summaries and then moving on to production details, critical reception and analyses, and handling the in-references as we (you, I, and everyone else) see fit.  I don't see the barely-above-stub level status of the page persisting more than another week or two, and we can take that as a statement of commitment to add content if there's any worry that I am prognosticating.  — Banazir (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Film MOS and TV MOS. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. I went and looked those up as well as the Fiction MOS and the MOS for television episodes.  Banazir (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Azkadellia is, arguably, the best reason to watch Tin Man. And considering the amount of backstory and overall information that goes into the character, there needs to be a separate page for her, since there's obviously far more information than could be condensed into a paragraph or two on the Tin man page. And as was mentioned before, while all the other characters are pretty much straight analogues to their WWOO counterparts, the Azkadellia character is a huge departure, and deserves to be covered a little more in-depth. 74.227.6.174 (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the characters are straight analogues of the WWOO "counterparts" nor were they intended to be. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Collectonian, you can keep stomping on the words "analogues" and "counterparts" as much as you like, but it won't erase the fact that Sci Fi itself refers to Azkadellia as "the equivalent of the Wicked Witch of the West" in their press release, her portrayer (Kathleen Robertson) refers to her role as that of "an iconic villainess", etc. Neither I nor anyone else I see editing the Tin Man or Azkadellia pages is asserting that they are straight analogues in the sense of a remake.  Yes, Tin Man is a re-imagining in the sense that the 2003  Battlestar Galactica TV series is a re-imagining of the original 1978/1980 series.  "Counterpart" is not a strict technical term and IMO should not be restricted, neither is documenting the interpretations of the actors, principal creators (writers), and professional reviewers of the work unsourced guesswork. — Banazir (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Wikipedia is about information, and it's about providing information to those who want it. Someone might be interested in learning more about Az, so they'd go to trusty Wikipedia to learn more about her. Let us not fail the public by deleting information. Any information does not hurt Wikipedia, and only increases our dependability to those who use it. If this page was merely a stub or something, then we might have reason to delete it, but someone obviously put a lot of hard work into this very in-depth page and it should be kept up. I realize that Wikipedia has become really anal about this lately, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that our business here is to provide information. This page certainly does that in a very professional manner. --Promus Kaa (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per Xymmax above; Arguably, characters from Tin Man, being a singular work, would not ordinarily be worth their own entries, as opposed to a single page that deals with all the characters. But given the "under construction" banner, I'd like to see what comes of the page first. If it merely echoes the WP:ILIKEIT mindset that is echoed in many of the responses here, then I'd vote for deletion. If it can be truly fleshed out, then it would be worth keeping, IMO. --Mhking (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I would be open to the idea of a character page with all of the characters and just a section for Azkadellia, my feeling is that there's a rather well-defined line between "strongly inspired by" (cf. Raw and Glitch; for all their backstories and talents, they are played rather archetypically) versus "complete re-imagining of" or "new twist on". I think Az falls on the "complete departure" side of the line.  I'm certainly open to suggestions as to what you consider "fleshing out".  My plan is to keep adding material on the sources that inspired her creators - from their interviews and critical reviews that have come out and that I just haven't had time to collect yet (and that perhaps other editors will add). Any other ideas?   — Banazir (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The jury seems to still be out on side-by-side comparisons of Tin Man and WWOO characters; I'm happy to go with consensus either way, but I don't relish arguing or wrangling over every point of observation or direct inference. That way lies the flip side of the coin, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Some editor eschew trivia sections in works of fiction as matter of course, and similarly, some are automatically going to oppose any character page of a new series or any comparative review of a re-imagining as being inappropriate (premature, OR, POV, etc.). — Banazir (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is detailed and informative (perfect for wikipedia). And the subject is a main character within the miniseries. -- Voldemore (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:RS. The article is basically a bunch of excess plot detail, counter to Notability (fiction), and original research (and not particularly accurate at that--re-viewing the online video, I get a different number(s) of 'mobat'-related tattoos, and can't find a source to verify which is correct). Unlike Winnie the Pooh or James T. Kirk, Azkadellia is not well known outside of Tin Man (TV miniseries), and is just like the Wicked Witch with some arbitrary plot devices slathered on, just like the rest of the main characters. For what it's worth I did watch all three parts and overall enjoyed it--I just don't think any of the individual characters warrant separate articles, outside the brief summaries at Tin Man. Most of the keep comments above seem to me to be variations of WP:ILIKEIT and/or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had read WP:OR and WP:RS before, and I disagree that the press releases fail a reliability test, but I'm open to criticism on the TV Guide and other television media reviews. I would never compare Azkadellia to James Kirk or Pooh, but perhaps Rick Deckard or Gaston might be apt analogies (single film, central character).  OTOH, if someone makes a page of Tin Man characters and suggested merging this article with it cf. Rose DeWitt Bukater into the list of Titanic characters, I personally would be glad to go along with that, as Xymmax suggested up at the top of this AfD discussion.  As for WP:NOT, I agree that this page needs some work there, too, and that a lot of summary information ought to be merged back into the main series article.  These things take some time.  — Banazir (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the record, my reason for having this article is as a repository of story-external information about the character: the creative process of adapting the iconic, archetypal Wicked Witch from TWOO; the actors' and writers' views on her portrayal in this series; her critical reception (and, say, any awards won, though those decisions are still some time off in the future). I do feel strongly that simply merging Az back into Tin Man itself would lose a lot of information, or at the least, create an organizational and stylistic headache, since the amount of information that would go into the (currently stub-class) series page, even after plot material were migrated over, would be a significant fraction of what is there now.  Pursuant to WP:FICT, I would cite the "technical reasons" it mentions as possible exceptions to a doctrine of "no character pages for single works of fiction".  We're talking about a 3-part miniseries: everything from a character photo to costumes to articles on merchandising, etc.  This material is already out there, and what's left to do is to sift through it to assess notability. — Banazir (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said why I made this page, I should also say that for the record, I think that a careful comparison with the Wicked Witch from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is in order. It's not why I forked the page, but since that issue has become a matter of some debate on the Tin Man discussion page, I think it's apt to point out that a) clearly Azkadellia is a standalone character not wholly derivative of the WWoTW (a point in favor of keeping this article rather than merging it into Wicked Witch) and b) clearly the allusion to that same character via her possessor is strong, both visually and in plot and dialogue homages ("wow, she melted!").  I'd spell it all out, but some of this lacks for sources and would be OR if we just wrote it into the article.  It's no stretch to see that some (read: enough) of this information has already been supplied by the writers and cast in interviews and just needs sourcing, while more of it (beyond the essential material we already have) will materialize in the coming months as often happens with films and TV miniseries.  We are not waiting for sources that may or may not get published, but collecting sources that exist and checking them for authoritativeness.  — Banazir (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I reviewed "A Touch More Evil", and in a scene that occurs after Cain shoots Zora, Az clearly has eight tattoos, four on each side, and the center one (apparently corresponding to Zora) is gone.  Presumably there were originally nine (on the front side of her body, at least), but I haven't seen a frame where all nine are visible.  Her costumes tend to hide the two on her shoulders.  Thanks for spotting this.  — Banazir (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2007 (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.