Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri the Echidna


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dimitri the Echidna

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its series 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. TTN (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No out-of-universe info. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as article has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and is wholly constitutive of plot. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this character is a major villain of Sonic the Hedgehog. Comic books are perfectly acceptable sources on Wikipedia. And notability cannot be "established" as notability is purely a subjective opinion. If the article contains any original research, the solution is to remove the original research, not delete the article. And WP:PLOT does not have the consensus required to be policy. This is just another disruptive cut-and-paste nomination by a disgruntled Pokemon fan with an axe to grind, who has little to no experience in writing or improving articles. WP:PLOT was (wrongly) used to get rid of all the Pokemon articles, so now TTN is on a crusade against every article about fictional characters. It's pathetic and childish. If this is an example of TTN's work, I have serious doubts about TTN's ability to determine what any article needs. Your time would be better spent trading your Pokemon cards with your buddies Nemu, and letting people with actual skills write this encyclopedia instead of tearing it down because you don't know how to. This temper tantrum by TTN after a six-month editing restriction by the Arbitration Committee is deplorable, and just proves that you have learned nothing. If TTN can't have an article for every one of his Pokemon, there can't be an article for any fictional character, right? The sad thing is that little Nemu doesn't realize his actions are only enriching Jimbo Wales through his fiction wiki, and not improving Wikipedia in the least. No, that would actually take some effort, instead of mindless, brainless cut-and-paste Twinkle AFD nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not on the contributor. Secondly; (a) Notability, as defined as an English Wikipedia guideline at Notability, is definitively objective. (b) Removing the paragraph stipulating the impropriety of plot-constitutive articles from the English Wikipedia policy at What Wikipedia is not does not change long-standing consensus therein.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as for the other characters. No reason given applies as an objection to this--suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. As for keeping a separate article, at this point it does not really make sense until there are some kind of sources. Lets work towards a compromise on these. DGG (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Utterly in-universe, overly detailed plot summary, propped up without the aid of a single reliable or third-party--or any whatsoever, though perhaps I overlooked one--sources, with not the slightest suggestion of interest by the world at large. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 17:00, 7 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.