Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolet


 * 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 redirect to 10,000 BC (film). The history is still available if anyone wants to retrieve details to incorporate into the target article. RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Evolet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable to be included in Wikipedia. Binod Basnet  (talk)  14:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG or the applicable essay.   SITH   (talk)   17:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails all notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment...but would not be averse to redirecting to the film's page as per Bakazaka's suggestion below. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 10,000 BC (film). There's no reason to have a standalone article on this single character who is already discussed on the film's page, and the added text in this article is unsourced speculation that does not merit merging. So, redirect the character name to the film as R from fictional character. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2019
 * WP:SigCov says "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." As you note, support for the "given name" notability can be found in databases. Can you suggest a "another article" in which this information should appear? Maybe in a "cultural references" section of the (UTC)


 * Retain. I've added some cites. It appears to stand on its own as a feminine given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butwhatdoiknow (talk • contribs)
 * Given that editors have already !voted based on the substantive content of the page, would you mind holding off on completely rewriting the page as an SIA until some consensus has been achieved? Your proposal seems reasonable, and being bold is important, but so is gaining consensus, which is the whole purpose of an AfD discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the etiquette tip. I'll stand down. That said, if an article can be saved by changes, I wonder why we prevent those changes from taking place. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, you think that the article should be kept, but as an explicit Set Index Article about the name "Evolet", as opposed to its current form as an article about a fictional character (including the character infobox). It's a good idea that we should discuss here. No one has prevented your edits, and no one has reverted them. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Despite having an awesome website name, appellationmountain.net appears to be a one-person blog, and thus is not RS. All other coverage of "Evolet" as a given name is in databases and the like which is not SIGCOV. And as others argued before the article was overhauled, the character from 10,000 B.C. does not meet GNG. signed,Rosguill talk 20:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV says: "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." As you note support for Evolet as a given name can be found in databases. And those databases show it was first used following the release of 10,000 B.C. Where would you suggest we put these facts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It could merit a section of its own in 10,000 B.C., or merit mention in the Reception section. signed,Rosguill talk 23:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (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.