Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbryan Wyndon


 * 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 Nakon  17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Elbryan Wyndon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns few hits that appear to be only non-reliable fansites and the like which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated another character from the series as well. The discussion can be found here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not finding much in the way of sources to support the notability of this character either. Contra nom, per WP:WAF not all in-universe material need be removed, and primary sources are acceptable for in-universe information. Per WP:FICT, the next thing to try is merge, but I'm not seeing an obvious merge target. Possibly selectively to a new Main Characters section in The DemonWars Saga. Will wait to !vote till I think some more. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "per WP:WAF not all in-universe material need be removed": "In-universe" is a particular style of writing, not identical to "information from primary sources". Primary information as far as useful should of course be included in the article (e.g. a concise plot summary), but it may not be written up from an in-universe perspective like is the case in this article. Adjusting for the real world as frame of reference would indeed leave this as a substub. Also, consider the all-important and widely misunderstood difference between writing about the plot (which indeed requires secondary sources in addition to the primary sources) and summarising the plot (which is not sufficient as sole content for an article). User:Dorftrottel 10:15, January 29, 2008
 * Delete per fully qualified and well-worded nom. User:Dorftrottel 10:15, January 29, 2008


 * 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.