Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Acorn


 * 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 per well-reasoned arguments for deletion, contrary to the vague and/or non policy and guideline based arguments for keeping. Disregarding all delete arguments because either the policy or guideline involved is in your view disputed, or because the opinion doesn't follow some essay, is not really constructive and rather self-contradictory (if you don't want people to use policies, you certainly shouldn't start using essays in your arguments). And if you disregard "pernom", perhaps it would be fairer to add the same to "per le Grand" opinions as well... Fram (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

House of Acorn

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is as such an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Sonic the Hedgehog comic books and cartoons. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Le Grand. Fair field fencer  F F F  10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Combination articles like this for minor characters are appropriate. This should become the standard practice at wp  for all notable fiction. what counts in the world as notable fiction may be unfortunate, but that's the RW for you.DGG (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article meets the stalled compromise at WP:FICT and the discussion continues at WP:NOTE. Please join us there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG.Hobit (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Contrary to Le Gradne, I saw zero real world assertion of notability in that article. It's three pages of fancrufty plot summary and listy character coolness bios. Burn it. ThuranX (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT are illegitimate reasons for deletion. Sincerely, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But Notability (fiction) is. Responding to minor portions of an comment and disregarding the bulk of it is illegitimate as well. Please don't try to be deliberately misleading.  JohnnyMrNinja  03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it isn't. It says, "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.  The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'."  And a look at its talk page suggests that it is most likely to fail, which is why citing it as policy is either deliberately misleading or just not actually reading it.  Sincerely, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * However, JohnnyMrNinja's clain of it being plot summary is a perfectly legitimate reason to delete per WP:NOT.  Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 13:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct that Notability (fiction) is not an active guideline but a proposed one, I was referencing it because it is more forgiving towards these sorts of AfDs than Notability (which is an active guideline), so I'm not sure how that helps your case. I don't care which one (it could be Notability (criminal acts)), if notability can be confirmed it should be kept, if not, deleted.  JohnnyMrNinja  14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is also heavily disputed and undergoing massive disagreement overhow to revise (or even replace) it. Because notability seems obvious it should be kept.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki this to http://sonic.wikia.org if it is not already there, then delete it from Wikipedia. There are no sources present, this article constitutes trivial information as a non-notable part of the series, and it violates WP:NOT in that the most of the article is excessive plot summary.  It doesn't matter if it can be called cruft or not, this is what the article is made of and I believe it should be deleted on these grounds.   Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 03:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The real service that this article provides is as a well-organized and coherent portal to other articles and thus is valuable in that context. Best, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So just because it links to other articles and provides a little context that completely fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc means it should be kept? No offense, Le Grand Roi, but I see that as being absurd.   Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 05:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting it would be absurd as it does more good than not. It unquestionably passes notability (you can't get much more notable in the video game world than Sonic with the exception of say Mario), the characters can easily be verified in the many Sonic publications, and something that is organizational as a list or portal is not restricted by the disputed plot guidelines.  -- Happy editing!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why is it not verified on the article? Pardon my language, if you find this comment offensive, but "put up or shut up".  Now, I didn't say I wouldn't reverse my decision if you can fix it by the end of the AFD period.  And unquestionably passes notability?  First-party sources cannot be used to establish notability per WP:SELFPUB.  Also, I seriously doubt this is a "list or portal" or has any function similar to it.  Who looks up "House of Acorn" expecting to link to a bunch of Sonic articles?  Only someone seriously acquainted with the comics.  I don't think that's definitive enough to make this similar to "a list or portal".   Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Like a table of contents, you get the verification when you go to the chapters. If you doubt it's function, then why not ask those who worked on it to come to this discussion to see what use they get out of it?  People seriously acquainted probably count in the thousands or millions, which makes this article a valuable research tool for them.  I am far more interested in that thousands of readers look at the article on a monthly basis and plenty of our editors also see value in devoting their spare time to working on it over the span of years than just a few thinking it should suddenly be deleted now during a mere five day discussion.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to House of Acorn - I agree that the format is acceptable, but the subject is not. I have not been able to find "Real World" (not Mobius) notability of the house itself, or any of the members. If any sources are provided that confirm such notability, I'll vote keep.  JohnnyMrNinja  03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to get sufficient sources from a search, but as I said above, the article works great as a coherent means of navigation to other articles as well. -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage from fansites (considering the first three links are Wikipedia/Wikia, as well as the rest of sites that I saw) does not make this notable, per WP:VG/S. Le Grand Roi, perhaps you should really look into what you turn up with a search first before claiming you've found reliable sources that show coverage by third parties.   Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources don't "seem" to be. They are or they aren't. Searching for anything will result in hits, that means nothing. As for navigation, whichever articles aren't deleted (if any) can go in a category.  JohnnyMrNinja  14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The results show clear Potential, not just current state. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is plain silly. Searching for something in Google means absolutely rubbish. The search I put in above was for "cupcake hat moon". Should I start that article now? You have made little to no sense throughout this discussion.  JohnnyMrNinja  07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced drek. This would be unacceptably bad on a project that had readers' guides for longrunning comic series, but the fact that this is a bad example of something Wikipedia doesn't even do should mean that there's no reason whatsoever that we need it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently these and  people think we do need it.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chewbacca is a wookiee indeed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per JohnnyMrNinja. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People who come across the name should be able to find some information in Wikipedia The specialized fan wikis are appropriate for the fans, but someone who does not know what   this is associated with will not know to look there, but should still be able to find information--and here is the place. The fan wiki can take the further details. The cure for poorly written articles is to spend some time on improving them, not spend tim on deleting them. DGG (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with content, at least not for me. No part of it is Notable. Sonic is Notable, Princess Sally might be, but her extended family is not.  JohnnyMrNinja  07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no desire to attempt to argue the disruptive nonsense that User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles keeps putting forth. From badgering people and continuously referencing misleading WP links that in no way validate the argument, to misrepresenting editor's comments, to saying that WP:Notability is not a valid reason to delete an article. I cannot see how these arguments can be made in good faith. Gaming the system makes a strong showing here. Good luck, logic.  JohnnyMrNinja  07:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really wish you would argue constructively in this discussion and not badger people who disagree or refer misleading to invalid arguments; I would like to assume good faith and hope that you are not gaming the system by focusing on editors rather than the content under disucssion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, your conduct here, and in other AfDs, is disruptive. You are, whether intentionally or not, being misleading, badgering editors, referencing WP pages that have no relevance, and at times being completely nonsensical. Your comments are not conducive to a consensus, but rather so confusing as to distract from the conversation, or possibly derail it completely. It may be completely unintentional, but your conduct seems aimed at not allowing a consensus to form. Whether this is intentional or not, it is not appropriate behavior and I ask you to please stop.  JohnnyMrNinja  05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your conduct in this discussion is actually turning quite disruptive and misleading, because we are supposed to be discussing the content in question and not other editors. In discussions we interact with each other, we don't simply vote; that is how we come to a consensus.  Please do not derail the discussion by focusing on editors instead.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others above me. In-universe plot summary of non-notable figures. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks for the links!!! :):):):):):) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable and unverifiable plot summaries, synthesis, and other non-encyclopedic nonsense.  Not so much as one reliable source.  No redeeming value whatsoever.   Hi DrNick ! 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:JNN and WP:UNENCYC. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-notable and unverifiable plot summaries, synthesis, and other non-encyclopedic nonsense. Policies (instead of, you know, one essay) bolded and linked for Le Roi's convenience. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Severely disputed policies though, and the thing is the article concerns a verifiable notable fictional royal family and is presented in a manner consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you severely dispute WP:V, WP:NOT, or WP:NOR, this may not be the project for you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic can be verified (the characters in Sonic the Hedghog appear in numerous sources), a coherent portal/list to other articles is akin to a table of contents and is therefore a helpful element of a specialized encyclopedia of notable fictional topics, and the article is presented in a neutral or straightforward point of view by simply presenting information about notable characters and providing internal links to their articles. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You say it's notable, without explaining why, after you linked WP:JNN in your previous comment. Don't say "The need for notability is severely disputed!" in one breath, and "This is notable!" in the next. I'm beginning to understand these accusations of disruptive gamesmanship levelled at you. Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is notable in that it concerns aspects of a fictional universe that is recognizable to millions of gamers, comic book readers, and cartoon watchers worldwide, although I of course concede that our standards of notability in general are currently disputed. The article provides an immensely useful purpose for our project as a navigational page and thus in that sense the sources for the members linked to on this article are located in their own articles as well.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to help in that effort instead of just generally gumming up the works uselessly by telling others to do so. In any event, such sites as "The world's largest comic book encyclopedia" include pages on "Princess Sally's friends and family".  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comicvine is an anonymously-edited wiki, which is not a reliable source (plus most of those articles are completely empty). Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The value I see in the page is primarily as a role similar to a disambiguation page or portal, i.e. as an outstanding means by which to navigate other articles and as such, just as a disambiguation page or portal is not itself overwhelmed with links and footnotes, lists to other internal links really do not need to be overly weighted down in such a fashion when they do link to other articles that are referenced. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is neither a disambiguation page nor a portal. It is an article. Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What have your own searches turned up? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing of value. It's such a ridiculously narrow subject that nobody has seen fit to comment; it's difficult to find sources covering the licensed works at all, other than in passing (e.g. "Including television shows and comic books" with no further mention). Hence me arguing to delete and all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree that it is difficult to navigate through the Google searches, because of the overabundance of fan sites; however, I wonder if there are published comic and cartoon related magazines that do not have online archives that need to be considered as well for the appearances of the characters collectively seem significant enough (it is a notable franchise after all) that I think it's not unreasonable that such sources exist, but again, I still see other navigational and organizational value in the article as serving a beneficial purpose to our project anyway. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The comic- and cartoon-related magazines tend to cover material aimed at older audiences, or are childrens' magazines of very little value for sourcing. (Disney Adventures and the like.) If it's so reasonable that sources exist, why can't you find a single one? Without one single source (I suggest a library trip), your "This is notable!" argument is baseless fluff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Were I to make a library trip, what publications would you recommend looking at? And yes I agree that saying WP:JNN is not really a compelling argument either way.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. No publications that I know of regularly offer useful commentary on bit characters in licensed-property childrens' comics. You have magazines like Disney Adventures, which are aimed at children and offer exceedingly little in the way of useful commentary on anything, and magazines like Wizard, which are aimed at an older audience inclined to be scornful of childrens' and licensed-property comics. You were the one who was arguing this was notable; I assumed you had read WP:N and had some sort of sources in mind. Or were you arguing that this was notable without actually knowing of any sources, any sorts of sources, or without even a basic knowledge of the subject matter? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the multiple appearances of the characters on the list in recognizable and popular primary sources suggested a kind of notability (I don't know what to make of the guideline, i.e. Wikipedic "definition" itself given the varied proposals and what seems to be upcoming request for comment; plus, I don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing that the guidelines themselves are edited by anyone like articles, but there have been times that I look at that page and it's changed from the last time I looked at; obviously, I'm not going to and wouldn't expect anyone else to re-read the same page every day) and the liklihood (or Potential, not just current state) of published sources. As I said above, I see navigational value to the project with regards to this particular article that really makes me feel inclined to an Ignore all rules regarding additional sources although I am of course willing to keep an eye or even look at any likely publications should time permit.  We obviously disagree and I'm not confident that we'll likely persaude each other on this one, but one thing I will say is that I thought for better or worse AfDs were supposed to go for 5 days.  Now, I know it's a holiday weekend and all, but shouldn't it have been closed by now?  It's not as if in this case only two or three people commented.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to Google searches and hit counts, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a pleasant night; time to prepare for lecture already! -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summaries with no claim (or evidence) of notability.  --Craw-daddy | T | 10:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, excessive trivia and material more appropriate for a Sonic-wiki, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 8 July 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.