Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juni Cortez


 * 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 no consensus.  A  Train talk 07:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Juni Cortez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fictional character has no independent notability outside of the films which it appears. The article has been plot cruft and references for several years before today and as far as I can see the sources are not remotely good enough to esstablish any notability. Interviews form creaters and random webistes are not relibale sources. ★Trekker (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * KEEP Nominator, your argument makes no sense. This fictional character has no independent notability outside of the films which it appears A fictional character would always have notability in and around the work that the character appears in. The article subject, the character has received significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. This article passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No I recommend you rephrase that because your comment makes little sense. A character does not always have notability within its own world. The only decent ref I see speaks about the characters sister in depth, not the character in question.★Trekker (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommend providing links to prove that the character has "received significant coverage in multiple WP:RS", which you have stated above. The nominator's argument is well constructed so I would advise you to read the arguments for AfDs more carefully in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "A fictional character would always have notability in and around the work that the character appears in." That is false, per WP:INHERITED that character would need independent notability from the work they appear in. Also, the coverage shown is not "significant".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment on WP:INHERITED. I have not checked to see about the coverage on the character so I cannot comment on that matter. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Is WP:FANCRUFT that fails the general notability guidelines.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this character does not have enough real world notability to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no policy-oriented arguments for deletion and no evidence of an actual WP:BEFORE - WP policy requires that AfD noms proceed on the basis of the notability of the subject, not as demonstrated in the article. This character is discussed (not as a TRIVIALMENTION) in such books as Mediated Boyhoods and Home Movies and has a whole chapter in Critical Approaches to the films of Robert Rodriguez, as well as another in a doctoral thesis by Victoria Kearley. This clearly meets WP:GNG, and I am getting tired of people citing WP:FANCRUFT as if it were a policy and as if it gave guidance on notability issues. In-universe style in articles is a WP:FIXIT issue, not a policy-based ground for deletion. Also, it is for the nominator and the Delete voters to do the WP:BEFORE, FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Acting high and mighty like people are crazy for not doing a deep dive into non fiction books about movies is not helping either. If this is really true, then give some proof instead of saying "gosh, check out the books from the library" and maybe people will change their vote. The burden of providing sources is on the creator of the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that the burden actually isn't there, in the case of AfD - the deletion criteria clearly state that the responsibility lies with the nom to do the BEFORE, and not to base the nomination on the state of the referencing in the article. I really do not know how the documentation could be more clear.
 * All of the books and the dissertation I cited came up in a simple search of Google Scholar. The responsibility is on anyone nominating a fictional subject for deletion or crying "FANCRUFT" to do at least this basic level of research. This isn't a matter of "high and mighty", it's a matter of respect for the bloody rules. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Doing "BEFORE" is not contingent on searching every method in existence, when the author of the article can't bother to source it, and nothing comes up in a basic search. If the sources are obscure, they should be included, or at least demonstrated in the AfD, without blaming the nominator and making it into a WP:ADHOM.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The nom offered no evidence of doing any BEFORE, and your own !vote cited the GNG even though a simple Google Scholar search shows that GNG is met by this subject. That isn't "searching every method in existence"; it's the essential minimum in cases where regular web or media searches are likely to result in long lists of fan-generated material or trivial mentions. According to WP policy, insufficient citation in an article is never grounds for AfD aside from BLP issues. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: no consensus

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)  01:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- not independently notable of Spy Kids (franchise); no sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. A redirect of the name only can be done later at editorial discretion. No need to preserve article history as it's all in-universe content. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - sadly, this experienced editor is contributing a non-policy-compliant !vote here. I have listed sources providing SIGCOV so there is no grounds for deletion per GNG. AfD is not cleanup. Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep "independently notable" is not a valid deletion rationale. Notability is established through independent sources--financially and editorially independent of the subject itself--but in no way does notability require an element, especially a fictional element, have coverage or impact outside of its own context. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in ignoring an invalid deletion rationale which would be used to delete fictional characters all over this project. It will be a sad day when we have to say goodbye to articles on fictional Spock, James T. Kirk, Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and the many others who have a notability based upon the projects which created them. Characters have real-world results in relationship to and because of their projects . WP:BEFORE finds news and book results, but sources toward a topic based upon their projects will not deter anyone who be misreads the essay WP:INHERIT (it's not a policy or guide) .  None of us will ever have Juni Cortez or Bugs Bunny or Captain Kirk knocking on our doors, but so what?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is merely a slippery slope fallacy. There is no indication that a character from Spy Kids had the same real world impact as Captain Kirk. The article certainly doesn't give an indication.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ping me when you send the Kirk article to deletion.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I may have phrased my sentence wrong. I corrected it. I didn't mean to insinuate Captain Kirk was non notable, just that you are picking extreme examples of articles that are obviously notable and wouldn't fall under the same criteria as this one.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)"
 * Ah... while actor William Shatner might have a real-world notability, using the nominator's arguments, Kirk does not and will not be knocking on our real-world doors. That's the weakness of his argument.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * delete lacks sufficient RS. Fails GNG. Coverage is inuniverse. Fancruft Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - Can I just point out that this is another !vote that is not compliant with policy. We are supposed to be having an AfD discussion about whether the subject of the article meets GNG requirements. I have listed four substantial academic references (found using Google scholar) that show that it does. This !voter has clearly not even read the discussion, and has not provided any rationale grounded in anything but an IDONTLIKEIT reaction to the existing article. Not policy compliant. Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You did not "list" four references, merely noted that they existed in the manner of WP:SOURCESEARCH. You should link to them and demonstrate how they show real world notability if you want people to take them as legitimate arguments towards the article's notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I most certainly did list them, by name, and described how I found them. There is absolutely no requirement for me to provide links - the way you are shifting the onus looks a lot like just moving the goalposts, from here. The AfD criteria and the GNG are actually quite clear. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But James Tiberius Kirk does have real world significance. Much has been written about him apart from the in universe story line, he is a benchmark against which other SciFi spaceship captains are measured, and his is probably a household name.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He's fictional yes, and just as with Juni, all sources speak about him in relationship to Star Trek....the series which created him. The "slippery slope" is when one uses a personal opinion about how "important" that series is to its target audience. Better than arguing the issue, it might be better to redirect to where the information in Juni already exists...Spy Kids (franchise).  Schmidt,  Michael Q.


 * Delete - Run of the mill fictional character. Dlohcierekim puts the matter succinctly above. Carrite (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Yet another !vote with no policy basis, and which does not seem to reflect even a cursory look at the sources on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Provide links to the sources rather than an assertion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not WP:FANCRUFT . Character was arguable to ,main character in the first Spykids film as per the Google books source given in the article. desmay (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Barely any proper coverage specific to this fictional character, the refs given are barely related to the subject nad often make a passing mention at best; not to mention one of them is slideshow by Entertainment Weekly and another is a 8 Top Secret Facts tabloid article by People's Choice. Nothing to prove its notability at all (doesn't pass GNG by any regards). Also, Newimpartial needs to stop badgering every "Delete" voter, especially with that placeholder "comment" at this point. -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 07:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That argument might carry more weight, QEDK, if you had provided a policy-compliant argument on the notability of the topic rather than an irrelevant digression on the sourcing of the article (but disguised as a !vote). Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2017 (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.