Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters


 * 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, Consensus is clear that the article should be kept and cleaned up, even though there are several weak arguments for keeping. Will add a cleanup tag to the article. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unencyclopaedic article with massive flaws. Where to begin... Wikipedia is WP:NOT for hundreds of kilobytes dedicated to summarizing minutae about fictional secondary characters (plot elements), not to mention not a place for indiscriminant information, nonexistant notability, no reliable secondary sources, full of blatant copyvio images with deceptive copyright tags. Also, be prepared to be pre-emptively called a deletionist jackass for trying to apply our rules/standards.
 *  Merge and Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot merge and delete. Well, you could, but it'd be a pain in the ass for the admin who would merge the histories. You want just merge. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There is no content in this article that qualifies as "real-world context" (or "brief" :-) ) that would merit merging into another article.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see anything to merge, or a place to merge it to. Article is nothing but plot summaries, no real world context, no secondary sources. Ridernyc 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for starters, the nominator doesn't even understand that the deleting editors around here don't understand the concept of MERGE. It's not their job.  That's what normal editing is for.  It's delete or keep.  There is no merges around here.  Additionally, even if merge was an option, it is TOTALLY inappropriate in this case.  All the Avatar pages are actually too big as is, and most need splitting/trimming, not merging.  Secondly, overly much info is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for cleaning it up or splitting it.  The shear amount of readership and editing the page gets by an absolutely insane number of people make it more notable that a good percentage of the articles on wiki and this is a clear example of empty criticism.  It also makes it difficult to do editing on as it gets so many edits (it got ~30 edits in 1 day on dec 3 by ~18 different editors).  If you have issue with the images, take it to the proper place, the images.  Additionally, secondary sources is a guideline, not a policy, and shouldn't even be mentioned in a deletion discussion.  Verifiable content is the policy, and the fact that these characters exist is easily verifiable (the very images the nominator complains about are making it pretty clear the character exists), and the article already has some referencing beyond that. One last thing, even the indiscriminant information says "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Yes, they need editing, deleting is not warranted.Derekloffin 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge is a courtesy suggestion to salvage any germane information from the article, which should be deleted.
 * Neither the frequency of edits, nor your speculative "absolutely insane number of people" has any mention or place in our general notability guideline and specific fiction guideline.
 * Existance of fraudulently used images is indicative (to me) that the shephards of an article are more concerned with expanding the article than they are interested in following rules (especailly when dealing with copyright violations). I'm especially concerned with stuff like this image, in which the uploader claims to have created it and released it to the public domain.
 * WP:RS is our most sacred guideline, and certainly has place in a deletion discussion.
 * If you're going to quote a guideline, please don't attempt to change it's meaning by leaving out the qualifier. The entire quote reads (emphasis added):
 * "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

- WP:NOT .
 * None of the content within this article relates to "real world context and sourced analysis" (or any of the rest of the requirement).  It also clearly states "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot".  A huge article dedicated to minor characters in a cartoon is way beyond a "brief plot summary".
 * Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup a character list, no matter how damn crufty it may be, is an acceptable fork however you slice it. The title seems odd, though not a terribly big deal, and Blaxthos' point about images is relevant, but all this leans towards cleanup. At worst, a merge would be the desired result. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A fork is only acceptable if the content is compliant with the notability guidelines and does not fail WP:NOT (this article fails both). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus why I suggested cleanup. I don't even watch this show and know that half these characters are significant to the plot. It needs a new name and some plot stabbing, that's all. Lists of characters are acceptable forks, this one was just poorly executed. Like I said, at worst this needs merging, not deleting. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that a "brief summary of the plot" wouldn't include detailed information regarding (or even mention of) admitted "secondary characters". Even if we grant your notability argument (which I have trouble following), how does any of this merit an encyclopaedic treatment of the topic (specifically, real-world context and impact that is not solely dedicated to plot elements, as required in WP:NOT)? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep going on about that, but it's not terribly relevant. It is one thing to have a single character article that fails NOT. Character list articles exist for the express purpose of clumping together characters which on their own could not pass but as a group are relevant to the understanding of the topic, which these are. You've swept yourself up in the letter of the rules without considering the spirit. Just because they don't have the info doesn't mean they can't, and just because it's an excessively long block of crap doesn't mean outright deletion is the answer. One does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's just a fundamental difference of opinion -- I do not believe Wikipedia serves as a repository for massive amounts of in-universe discussion of plot elements. Accusation of wikilawyering not withstanding, most of our guidelines seem to explicitly state exactly my point.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * making a large list solely consisting of plot elements is no different then making 20 separate articles consisting solely of plot elements.Ridernyc (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The former is still considered more acceptable than the latter, and our guidelines state that such topics should for the most part be considered an extension of the parent article. Our arguing aside, I stand by my position: this article, or where it is merged to, is acceptable even with a lack of real-world info, as it furthers understanding of the topic (albeit excessively at the moment) for readers, and deleting the information would be harmful to that end. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy or guideline (beyond WP:IAR) that supports your claim? If not, I have to say that explicit instructions on direct point trump an implicit "spirit" based on "furthering understanding".  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also common sense and Wikipedia precedent. Not all decisions need to be hard-outlined in rules, as you are quite insistent on doing. The characters as a group are notable and the article with cleaning is a perfectly acceptable content fork. I'm tried of repeating this. Even merging is fine, but deletion is simply not a good way to deal with this article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Even the title is a major POV mess; who is to say that those characters are "major" or "secondary". Otherwise, merge into main characters list if there is one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim (very much) and Merge to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters per nom (leaving transwiki as an editorial option). Other issues like images can/should be addressed outside this AfD. – sgeureka t•c 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Kitia&#124;Kitia&#93;&#93;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to point out that the Avatar project group is very open to suggestions and working to improve the project and articles. I've started a discussion with them about removing the individual episode articles and so far they are very open to trying to merge them and improve the situation. Many of them realize that alot of the articles cross the line. Ridernyc (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * want to actually make some suggestions there? Find some sources, find some real world content.  If you can't then this can not be cleaned up to meet policy. Ridernyc (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He does not need to do that. Those who edit the article do. Ask them. — Someguy0830 (T |C) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * he is making unfounded claims that the article can be cleaned up. When you make claims you need to support them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
 * No, when you make claims in an article, you need to support them. This is an AfD, where no such requirement is necessary. No effort has been made and that is the core of his argument. He is not required to make the effort to support the claim. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a debate, pretty much by definition claims need to be supported in a debate. He made a rather meaningless statemnt in the debate. a statement he repeatedly makes in many debates. If he wants his statment to mean anything he needs to support it. Ridernyc (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also if you read the guideline he constantly links to it has little to do with this debate.Ridernyc (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where you'd be wrong. No effort was made to review or do something about the cruft. The whole attitude here is basically "to hell with the characters because they're crufty," when anyone who takes a few minutes to review the material can easily see that a merge proposal would have been a far more appropriate venue, which AfD isn't for. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then he needs to say that and not just "AFD is not cleanup". Ridernyc (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop arguing about whether or not he should have supported his argument, this is a nomination for deletion. Besides, he gave a link to a guideline explaining himself. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article may need a lot of cleanup, but the article is linked to often throughout numerous amounts of articles relating to the topic. If the article is deleted, every time a page links to a character on this page, it would have to be re-written, explaining who the character is. This is a cumbersome process and since the article just needs some clean-up or to be merged, deletion is not the answer. I plead you to change your mind. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 00:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A redirect would solve that problem, as would a simple AWB substing run. That kind of harm isn't enough reason. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A redirect and an AWB run is not going to edit twenty or more articles to include a character description in context. It is not as simple as putting in two sentences. The section of each article has to be edited to include an explanation of the character. In addition, your rebuttal still does not justify how this article should be deleted instead of just cleaned up or merged. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing to keep or merge, just so that's clear. Reasonably, these characters would still be covered elsewhere, hence a redirect would do the job. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. As long as the article is not deleted, I'm good with that. In fact, it would be better if merged. However, if anybody comes along and says it should be deleted, they need to know the real difficulty of replacing the information in the article, referenced or unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Combination articles & lists like this are the way to go for minor characters who individually might not be appropriate for an article. They are a useful compromise. The individual characters do not have to be notable--they are just part of the content. DGG (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions.  -- Hiding T 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it within our remit to be this detailed? Should we be going into such detail in our plot summarising and characterisation, to the detriment of contextualising and the encyclopedic method?  Not sure where this fits in between not being paper and not being indiscriminate. Hiding T 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden, and no I don't need to justify if cleanup is possible. It is reasonable that an article of this name exists and that is the only thing up for discussion in an Afd.  Forks of this type are quite reasonable, and defined in WP:FICTION.  Again, as some people are confused here, I am talking about the existence of the article and the fact that it is not a redirect.  If you don't like the content, please fix it yourself in a civil manner. -Verdatum (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed with everyone above, you don't delete an article to clean it up except in BLP conditions. Lawrence Cohen  23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * again has anyone shown that this page can be cleaned up to meet WP:Plot, if there are no sources for real world context, and no secondary sources how can this be cleaned up? Ridernyc (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply In terms of the question of whether the article should be kept or deleted, I can. Please read WP:PROBLEM. -Verdatum (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec to Ridernyc) Will you stop going on about that? Over and over you tow the same line while failing to realize the simple fact that people can find them. It is not required that people in the AfD do this, and your continued rehashing of the same argument will not affect the outcome. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "people can find them".  In this sentence to what does "them" refer?  I am not "rehashing" the same argument.  The previous argument made was WP:NOEFFORT, these are two separate points.  I link to it because it represents a well formed argument, achieved by general concensus of the WP community that has not yet been mentioned in this discussion, yet seems extremely applicable and seems to answer the request made.  If you chooose to reject it, which you are of course welcome to do, I ask that you please read WP:ONLYESSAY.  Modifying or clarifying an argument to better communicate your position is not "rehashing", it is instead the essence of a disscussion.  -Verdatum (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have done edit conflict note. It was intended as a reply to Ridernyc, not you. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OIC, my mistake. -Verdatum (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Will you stop saying it's not your job, it's easy to do and would end the debate. And yes it is your job in an AFD debate to provide evidence. You need to support the claims you make in the debate. From   Articles_for_deletion "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote:. Ridernyc (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridernyc, I do not see any evidence to suggest that Someguy0830 believes that this is a voting process. He and others have given justifications, but as I interpret it, you are choosing to ignore them.  The way I interpret WP:PROBLEM is that the burdon of proof is on the challenger.  As Lawrence Cohen says, "you don't delete an article to clean it up except in BLP conditions."  Further, Looking at the article's discussion page, I see no evidence that anyone has made a signifigant effort to perform a consentual cleanup.  Since you are so adamant for proof that it cannot be cleaned up, perhaps you should make a civil effort to do so.  If you succeed, your efforts will be appreciated.  If you fail in such a way that shows that cleanup is impossible, then you have some proof, and if you succeed and the result is an article that is a tiny fraction of it's original size, then you'd probably get a lot more support for a merge/delete proposal.  As for those who say keep, I assume we are fine with the article as is for now and will make an effort to clean up the article as our priorities allow. -Verdatum (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is, unless it is pointed out to the people in the wiki-project that the article needs to be fixed to meet Encyclopedia standards, nothing is going to be done about it. Also, if this does end keep with clean-up needed, pleases don't renominate it in a month, cause currently, we are working on merging the episode articles into seasons and have the holidays coming up, editing will be sparodic and focused on saving the information in 50 episode articles rather than fixxing this one. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. First off, this article is about a TV Show. Therefore, you have as much sources as you could possibly need for an article about secondary characters like this one. In addition, you have a variety of websites (such as TV.com, though that is not the only one), that also would have sources that information could be referenced to in the article. Every other part of the article that needs cleaning up just needs an experienced editor to fix prose, etc. I do not see how this article could possibly not be cleaned up. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Primary sources like the show itself do not establish notability. Furthermore, WP:NOT is policy. Second, tv.com is not a reliable source because it has no editorial oversight. Therefore, it can't be used as source. What this article would need to be cleaned up is about 70kB of secondary sources to justify 70kB kB of plot (per WP:WAF, which mentions a "balanced use of both primary and secondary sources.") If this can't be provided, the plot should definately be trimmed. If it is trimmed, it is so short that it can be merged to the main character-list. – sgeureka t•c 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous to assume that we should have a one to one ratio for secondary sources and primary sources, and WAF states nothing of the sort. Balance is not equal, as these things do not weigh the same. Arbitrarily establishing numbers off a deliberately non-numbered proposal accomplishes nothings. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally suspect sgeureka's scenario is accurate. However, someone should take the time to trim this article in a manner that reaches concensus on the article's discussion page.  Then if the content is not sufficient to justify a fork due to pagesize, propose a merge.  Then perform the merge once concensus is reached that a merge should be done.  Then this article can be switched to a redirect to the mergeto page.  Then it would be reasonable to request a delete.  But since concensus takes some time, the appropriate action at this time is to keep. -Verdatum (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be trimmed, I just disagree with the assertion of how the sources should work. In a list article, one or two for every character would be more than enough. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was not so much that a one to one ratio is appropriate, but that a two-out-of-universe-sources to 70bB ratio is widely inappropriate, necessitating a major trim, probably making a merge very interesting. – sgeureka t•c 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In that respect, I'd agree. A merge would easily be viable if the characters were cut down, both on this and the merge target. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden (Duane543 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep and cleanup If most of the unnecessary information is gotten rid of, this article can be slimmed down to a much more efficent level, accomidating information about the characters without overly long plot summaries. --Piemanmoo (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Arogi Ho (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Necessary for adequate description of the series. A rap on the knuckles for the nominator for pre-emptively assuring people that this is to be a combat situation, not co-operative. --Kizor (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (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.