Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan Elessedil


 * 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   merge to The Elf Queen of Shannara. BJ Talk 05:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavilan Elessedil

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

Non-notable fictional character. 42 Google hits. Abductive (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Elf Queen of Shannara.  Whispe ring  08:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article gets about 2 page views per day, about the level expected from web crawlers. No human is looking for this article. Abductive (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  10:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * merge This needs to be integrated in a combination article, with a short description, pretty much like the present.  No justification for having it separate. No justification either for not merging, and especially for not having a redirect. None mentioned by the nominator,  either.  DGG (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion in this case is that this character is so minor and ignored by even the fans (hence the low Google hits) that a redirect will never see any usage. Merging (in my opinion) would require an expansion of the target article that would conflict with WP:Undue weight and WP:No original research, given that there are zero secondary sources. Merges are appropriate in other cases, such as a character that has one mention in a secondary source. Abductive (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirects are so cheap that if only a few people ever use it, its worth it. That a character must have one mention in a secondary source to be worth covering in a merge is a new policy invention of your own. Try the Village Pump for that one--that nothing should be mentioned in Wikipedia or get a redirect unless there is one secondary source for it. I don't think you;ll get far, but you can certainly try. Rather, one good substantial discussion in a really good source can even be enough to support an article. Arguments about undue weight in the target article are for its talk p. But since you raised the question, my opinion is that failure to include it would be undue weight, failure to give appropriate weight, and the removal of sourced content==sourced to the primary source, as appropriate for straight description) Possibly you are concerned that if redirected someone would try to rebuild an article? I hope nobody would be so foolish as to try to rebuild this one. DGG (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to invent policy, just interpret WP:PLOT and WP:No Original Research. In particular, No Original Research forbids using primary sources to build articles. My view is that one needs about one secondary source per claim. By the way, this character's name is spelled wrong in the target article, so if a redirect is the outcome of this AfD, that needs to be corrected (and is further evidence of the unimportance of the character). Abductive (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and direct to The Elf Queen of Shannara (the same should probably be done for the other minor characters mentioned there). Also, the use of primary sources is completely allowed when sourcing basic information - primary sources can't be used to establish notability or verify controversial claims, but for basic information they are perfectly fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The controversial (and unstated) claim here is that the character is important. Do you get my drift? Abductive (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the words you are saying, but I don't agree. I don't see how sourcing character information to the novel it comes from is controversial no matter how minor the character is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If carried to its logical extreme, the whole novel could be on Wikipedia (paraphrased), each sentence sourced to one in the original. Requiring secondary sources prevents this. Abductive (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because an overdetailed summary of a novel, especially in paraphrase, is a copyright violation. How much amounts to over-detail is arguable, but what you suggest is blatant.
 * Even more than that, I can't see why it is an argument against a redirect. Notability applies to articles, not the content inside of articles, which just has to be sourced and relevant. If the proposed content were to say that this is a major character, that would need some kind of secondary source because it certainly isn't obvious. if it were to say this character is an exemplar of some particular virtue, it would need a secondary source if not obvious. But to say that this character is the cousin of the protagonist, and what happens to him, does not need a secondary source.  DGG (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, us mature people can decide what is too much detail and what is relevant with little disagreement. It is the fans of a work that will overdo it. Abductive (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as per ThaddeusB. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2009 (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.