Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters and groups in Bionicle (2nd nomination)


 * 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 and move to List of characters in Bionicle or similar. for plain old list naming coventions (non-admin closure) treelo  radda  00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Characters and groups in Bionicle
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Well, three months have passed since this was first nominated and kept for want of consensus. In my opinion it suffers from the same faults as before. It fails our notability guidelines- where are any reliable secondary sources that explain why this subject is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? Of the seven sources listed three are utterly useless (what is "Memory" and how do I look it up if I need to verify a specific claim?), two are primary sources and therefore can't satisfy WP:N. The remaining two sources cover paragraphs that are relevant to Bionicle generally and not the various factions and names specifically, and are there only to coatrack the rest of the article: a sprawling, unsourced, indiscriminate collection of excessive detail- fancruft, in other words.

All that needs to be said about the characters and groups in Bionicle, and all that can be justified by existing sources, is a little bit about the inspiration for the names in real-world languages, and the Maoris getting upset at having their language appropriated. That's already in the Bionicle article where it belongs, and anything more would be excessive and furthermore can't be backed up with sources. Reyk YO!  03:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but condense severely. Apart from the Memory bit, there are a few entries in this list that have been referenced properly. Since Bionicle is notable, having a spin-off article detailing characters within said notable universe is acceptable. It implies notability within the universe rather than real-life notability. Another good reason to keep it, is that it discourages people from creating separate articles on each single character. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also suggest this be renamed to List of Bionicle characters. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yup... Mgm said it all. Agree with the move to List of Bionicle characters.  --Pmedema (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete to the main article. A merge of content is fine, too.  Keeping this article on the condition that it is condensed and cleaned up glosses over the likely result if this article is kept: it will remain in its current state indefinitely.  Reyk's summation of the article sources is correct, and could have correctly described the article at the last AfD.  The material in there that is sourced reliably (and independently from Lego) belongs in a different article and is in this one just to claim that the list is "sourced", allowing the rest of the list to be built from editor interpretation and observation of primary sources. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep without a shadow of a doubt. Try moving it to a subpage.--O&#39;delanca (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles do not have sub-pages. Also, why are we keeping this beyond a shadow of a doubt? Protonk (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've livesearched it, and unfortunately I can't source it either. I've also googled it, and there's no sources there either.--O&#39;delanca (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So why are you arguing to keep? Reyk  YO!  21:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:26, 2 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.