Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Stupid Johnson


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Stupid Johnson

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Discworld through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character TTN (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Keep Important plot influence on multiple books. But yes, the article could use improvement. Lots42 (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Discworld characters (per WP:FICT). Mgm|(talk) 23:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mgm. McWomble (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely not delete he is an important plot device and needs coverage somewhere. Also much of this information deserves to be kept and would be unwieldy in the Discworld characters article.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Given the immense popularity of Terry Pratchett's Discwold books, the fact that Wikipedia authors have already covered many other sci-fi & fantasy worlds in equal detail, and the tragedy of Mr Pratchett's suffering from Alzheimer's disease, I'd say there is ample reason to keep this article. Textor (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. The notability/popularity of the books is not inherited by the characters. There is no evidence that the subject has any notability independent of the books. McWomble (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not a good keep argument, but it is a good argument to let editors attempt to improve article to the level of the better 'Other stuff' if possible the lack of a tag or merge suggesion before the article was brought here seems abuct. --Nate1481 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I just read Other stuff exists, it seem to say the exact opposite of what you ar saying here, i.e. a fair comparison deserves a hearing. --Nate1481 14:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed: Other stuff exists is far more balanced and nuanced than McWomble makes it appear. Accepting the validity of subject has no notability independent of the books means that a huge number of articles on fictional characters, objects, or settings would have to be eliminated, or folded into those on their respective sources. Please also note: Don't_overuse_shortcuts_to_policy_and_guidelines_to_win_your_argument. In our case, the BSJ article could perhaps be merged with existing ones on minor Diskworld Characters, though it is rather long, but should not be deleted. Textor (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per mgm above. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Important character in series of landmark importance. Will be discussed in all the reviews. The rules for notability refer to the work in general, and appropriate major characters should get treatment in individual articles as the material best indicates. Given the complexity of the series, articles on the characters are a good ay to bring the information together. The sourcing for this material will be from the primary sources, as appropriatate for plot and character--though there actually isn't much discussion of plot in this particular article. . Other aspects of the series mcuh be discussed, and will be in other components of the group of articles. This series in particular is noteworthy because of the complexity of the setting, and the setting is expressed in terms of the contributions of characters like this, who are thus a major part of the notability. The nominations seem to take no account of t he special characteristics of the work being discussed, neither its overall importance, nor the relative importance of different elements. Not all science fiction is identical.  DGG (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree with most of what you say in the other discworld-related nominations we've seen recently, IIRC this character never actually appears in any of the books, but is only mentioned on a few occasions. I doubt therefore that he is an "important character" who will be "discussed in all the reviews".  JulesH (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While it is arguable that a character who has never appeared in person is not major, his inventions play significant roles in several books and he is mentioned in a majority of those set in Ankh-Morpork (so roughtly 1 in 3 books). Also unless we have an article called BSJ's inventions then all that content will have to be move to Minor Discworld concepts or lost. --Nate1481 14:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s.should be moved to Bergholt Stuttley Johnson technically :D--Nate1481 14:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have to take issue with "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article" Is there a deadline no one told me about? the article has been growing steadily & no one had tagged it to be sourced till this month, I only came across it when the AfD was mentioned on the discworld project talk page, give the editors a chance to fix it first. --Nate1481 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Mgm. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep He is (depending on your views) a major or minor character that does influence the City quite majorly so how is there "unnecasary plot details".  Also how, for a fictional character in a series of books from one author, can there be third-party infomation when the only official source is (in this case) Mr Pratchett himself. The only way to find out if B.S.J. is important or not in the timeline of the Disc is to ring him (T.P. I mean) up, therefore we would have to do for most of the Discworld articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdunn (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. In other words, there are no independent reliable sources supporting any claim of notability independent of the series. This the subject fails WP:V. McWomble (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually its WP:N were discussing, the information is freely there in the various books to be verified. --Nate1481 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Also if an article fails WP:V because there is no other sources, then WP:V cannot apply to the situation. Common sense should be used. rdunn  12:19, 21 November 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.