Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeChuck


 * 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   keep, without prejudice against merging should local consensus so decide. Arguments to delete here were weak – variants on WP:RUBBISH, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:PROBLEMS and WP:JNN, but those advocating keep did so primarily on the basis of an important rather than verifiable conception of notability. Ultimately, the strength of the identified sources will determine whether or not a thoroughly verified, reliably sourced description of the topic is sustainable as a stand-alone article. Skomorokh 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

LeChuck

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

No assertion of notability. Insignificant references to reliable sources. Is essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles. Article has been tagged for clean-up for almost two years, with negligible improvement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Just like Articles_for_deletion/Guybrush Threepwood, there are plenty of sources for this character who transcends multiple notable works of fiction. Google Books has 51, Google Scholar has 24, and Google News archive has 218. AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your search is actually a little flawed: it's looking for LeChuck OR "Monkey Island", not both together. This is far more accurate
 * 12 from google books (Icon Group International does not count as they use wikipedia as their source o_O)
 * 21 from google scholar
 * 187 from google news archive
 * Now how many of them are actually usable as sources is another matter...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not just a character in an obscure game, but the primary antagonist of an entire series of very well-known adventure games (Monkey Island). Note: Articles for deletion/Guybrush Threepwood and Articles for deletion/Elaine Marley were also offered for deletion by the same nominator. —Lowellian (reply) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with no prejudice against a Merge. Too much reiteration of game events and some amount of OR (the Powers section); remove this and you're left with a relatively short article with established notability.  It may be expandable based on what other sources there are but probably is better served in a list of MI characters.  --M ASEM  (t) 12:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Main antagonist in one of the most notable computer game series of all time. A merge might be an option, but not deletion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable character in multiple notable works of fiction. And by Keep, I mean actually keep it, not claim it was merged and replace it with a redirect with little if any content copied over somewhere else, or mass delete most of the article then claim there isn't enough left for its own article and then merge it.  D r e a m Focus  14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

''Also see Articles for deletion/Herman Toothrot, which includes Stan (Monkey Island). Not very good for the nominator to fail to mention the related nominations.'' Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who stumbles into this one will stumble into the others, esp. since they also were inevitably linked in various lists of AfDs by theme, color, and hairstyle sorting. Relax. --EEMIV (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fairness to EEMIV, he'd simply redirected those other characters, and I didn't undo the redirects until after he'd nominated the two he didn't redirect, someone else added them to DELSORT fictional elements, and I got around to investigating their notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge or weak keep.  Laukku  TheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Prediction: Every single person who want a complete keep result will spend not one minute fixing the glaring problems of it. A single line of unsourced creation concent =/= good enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge When cut down, little actual stand-alone article exists. Merging it would be fine at this junction.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect; the article is unacceptably bad, being about two-thirds redundant plot summary and one-third original speculation/observation about the character. Once you've taken those two out there's nothing left. Nifboy (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's rationale and Nifboy; +non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or partial merge - this is excessive plot information (WP:WAF), which in any event belongs in the Plot sections of the relevant games. The small amount of out-of-universe context and verifiable information is shoved into the final "Notes" and "Legacy" section which can surely be included in the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per the above. Nothing here that is not better served at the main article. Spinouts are for content that is genuinely outside the accommodation of the main article. The idea that this applies here is laughable. Eusebeus (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup per Masem. At least get it into a verifiable, accurate article without OR and see what there is after cleanup. MuZemike 02:26, 11 September 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.