Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of Darkness


 * 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 based on strength of arguments. There may be reason for an article on this topic, but the present article doesn't make a case from reliable sources that this is so. I'll be glad to userfy for sourcing upon polite request; the case for the article was not helped by the needlessly aggressive tone of the article's author. (I considered a merge and redirection, but this particular title is probably best redirected to devil. Xoloz (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lord of Darkness

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deletion nomination Article is about a single character from a single movie. There is no evidence at all that reliable sources have discussed this character to this depth at all. This is largely original research and there is NO independent verification of any of this information at all. This takes an entirely in-universe perspective as well, in violation of WP:WAF and WP:FICT guidelines. This is not surprising, as no reliable sources seem to have dealt with this topic in any significant way. Jayron32| talk | contribs 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I created this article and so feel obliged to defend it. Perhaps if you'd care to observe the article again you'd see that it does not take on an in-universe perspective. It refers to the actor who played the character, it refers to the characters effect on popular culture, it refers to the actors who played the other characters, it takes on a detached, formal tone and it refers to symbolism. None of this is in-universe at all. There is no original research that I can see, the article contains an external link which I in my wisdom so graciously provided and I did try and do some references but I haven't quite got the hang of them yet, I'm relatively new on Wikipedia. Furthermore the article is about a notable character from a well-known film of cultural significance who has had something of an effect on popular culture. I hope you will take these things into account and maybe re-evaluate your hypothesis before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Illustrious One.
 * Just put the citations in. Other editors can help with the templates.  Without them, there is no proof whatsoever of your bald assertions that this is notable.  We don't work on the basis of simply taking pseudonymous people at their word for factual assertions around here.  Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't you here what I just said? I can't do citations, idiot. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, no personal attacks here. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Of course you can.  Simply state in the article what books, articles, papers, and so forth the information that you are writing comes from. Of course, if you are saying that you cannot do citations because there are no books, articles, papers, and so forth that your information is coming from, then you have just explained why this article should be deleted.  Wikipedia is not the place for primary research, and is not a publisher of first instance. It's an encyclopaedia.  Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article has WP:NOT and WP:FICT issues. It isn't enough to say "X is a fictional character in Y" to give an article's subject real-world context. The influence on the development of Ganon might be a consideration; however, the concession that a source can't be found doesn't help the article's prospects. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - why did this go to deletion discussion at all? The problems with this article could have and should have been handled via citation tags and the article's talk page.  Also, see WP:BITE.  One of the problems cited, "in-universe", is totally incorrect - the article is clearly about a fictional character from a movie.  Most of the article is an articulate and perceptive description of the character and the story in which he is portrayed, which can be verified by simply watching the movie.  The primary source, the movie (also a "primary source"), is provided in the first sentence. For more about the use of "primary sources" see WP:PSTS and the debate about fiction on it's talk page.  I've seen the movie, but I appreciate the character "The Dark Lord" more now that I've read this article, which makes me want to see the movie again!  Also, this subject has great potential for expansion, such as including information about that incredible make-up job, who designed it, what it was made of, how long it took to apply, etc.  And I'm certain that Tim Curry had something to say about his role, and that can be included as well.  Definitely a keeper.  Let Illustrious One develop the article further, as he is obviously interested in doing so.  If the article hasn't been improved to your satisfaction within a month, bring it back here.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia means teamwork. Let's give Illustrious One a hand:  congrats on a well-written description of the character (clap clap clap), and some help in the citation department.  ;-)    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    16:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, Transhumanist, are you saying you appreciate this article because of the original research put into it or because of its lack of any citations to anything outside of the movie itself? While Wikipedia should contain articles about fictional characters where such characters receive significant coverage in reliable sources, I see no evidence that this character has ANY such sources in existence.  Illustrious One claims that sources exist, but has yet to provide them.  I have doubts that they do, and without any verifiability, I see no reason to keep this article... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree that there are WP:PLOT, WP:FICT and WP:WAF issues. It's written mostly in-universe. Just because we know it's a fictional character from a movie doesn't mean the prose can put it in-universe. Being a character from a single movie and with no references outside of the movie itself does not assert notability for an article. Any relevant information can go into the article for the movie, providing it's backed by some references.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no in-universe context whatsoever. Furthermore by citations I thought you meant references, Uncle G. I begrudgingly apologise. And thank you for your support Transhumanist, it's nice to see someone with a brain around here. (*Takes a bow*).Illustrious One —Preceding comment was added at 13:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Fictional Character History is basically a rehashed plot summary from the movie, which gives the article in-universe context. Also, please remain civil in this AfD. Implying that the only editors who agree with you "have brains" doesn't win you any points. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Lord of Darkness is a fictional movie character that has had impact similar to The Predator. There have been two action figures recently released of the character. I have read discussions on the impact of the character in third-party sources before. The subject of the Lord of Darkness is notable and worth keeping, although the article definitely needs work. I'll go through and add references that I can find, but if we can agree that the character has notability, then we can focus on the development of the article. InVinoVeritas (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:N. We still have ZERO evidence that this character is discussed in reliable, independent sources.  Regardless of how awesome and cool the character is, with no sources outside of itself to reference (see WP:N), there is no evidence that the character is notable. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * McFarlane Toys and SOTA Toys might not be publishers, but they have produced products based on a perceived continued marketability of the character. This qualifies as making the Lord of Darkness commercially notable.InVinoVeritas (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Look in the Influence section. An individual dressed up as the character for a social event, he was featured in an episode of the hit television programme Family Guy, two action figures hav been made of him and he was an inspiration for one of the most popular computer game villains of all time, namely Ganon. He's extremely notable. Furthermore it's not a case of the character being "awesome and cool", it's a case of him being a notable character from a culturally significant film. If the Dark Overlord of the Universe from Howard the Duck can get a bleeding article then Darkness certainly can. --Illustrious One (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article has been challenged as having no cited references. WP:VER states that the burden of supplying the citations lies upon the writer or those who wish to retain the article.  I suggest you focus your effort with respect to this AfD on adding citations to the article.  There have to be movie reviews, interviews, etc. somewhere.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    23:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above points. -- Shark face  217  23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added Costume Design section. The costume design of the Lord of Darkness won it multiple Best Make-up and a Best Costume Design nomination from reliable independent sources, including the Academy Awards.InVinoVeritas (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why all that information can't be put into the article on the movie. The question is not whether or not the movie has enough information to merit an article, it clearly does.  The question is whether or not this one character does.  The character did not win the award, the movie did.  And hundreds of characters from movies get action figures.  It doesn't mean that people have WRITTEN about them.  The thing we need to see is WRITING, like words on paper or on a website or something, about this character.  I still see no evidence of any.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Look again. And sorry for saying you had no brains, I have a vicious tongue I'm afraid. --Illustrious One (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked. I still don't see anything.  The only reference in the article is a link to the IMDB article on the movie.  Again, anything that needs to be said about this character can be said in the article on the movie itself.  Without evidence that people have written about the character on its own, Wikipedia does not need to write about the character on its own.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Imbecile: To quote the article :

The Lord of Darkness has been the subject of two action figures, a 7" figure by McFarlane Toys and one 1/4 scale model by SOTA toys.

I have since added three more.


 * Legend review, mentions Curry, his makeup, and the makeup artist.


 * Makeup artist nominated for Academy Award for Makeup


 * The Legend FAQ (general info about the movie)

Will that suffice? Hmm?

--Illustrious One (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- Frankly, the first two links would be better suited for the main film article. The third link, however, is a fan site and is not considered as a reliable source. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So you suggest deleting this entire article and moving all the numerous facts it contains to the Legend article. If that happens don't you think the Legend article will be just a bit big? What would be the point? Just give the guy an article, he deserves it. He's the most well-known character from a well-known cult film and the article has citations, external links, it's informative, is written from an out-of-universe perspective and it provides a broad range of information on various topics. All it needs is an image and it will be feature article standard for the love of God! What what would be the point in deleting it? --Illustrious One (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete even if the character is notable, there is not enough real world context to justify this character having his own article. Anything that can be said can be discussed in the main film article. Articles need to be based on real world context, not a plot summary with some minor context thrown in to try to make it pass policy. Ridernyc (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of this article is original research anyways. If the article is pared down to the essentials, there is very little that would need to be moved over. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What I suggest is deleting the article, since there is almost nothing here worth saving. Sorry to be rude but you are really crossing a line.Ridernyc (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire personality section is a composition of obvious facts that are drawn from the movie. The thing about Ganon (with one "n" by the way) being based on him is a well-known rumour that is also mentioned in the Legend article if you'd care to have a look. Merry Christmas. --Illustrious One (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please back you accusations up with evidence by pointing out any original research that might by some meagre stretch of the imagination be in the article. --Illustrious One (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. The entire personality section, for one.  Where is this analysis of the character's personality and motives published BESIDES here at wikipedia?  The entire fictional character history, while not exactly original research, is basically the scenes the character appears in, as pulled from the main plot synopsis.  This is simply a restatement of stuff that would do fine in the main article on the movie.  The idea that Gannon is based on him is also entirely original research, as far as I can tell, since there is no reference to it.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your comment is the crux of why we have a policy of no original research. It may be obvious to you, but unless it is documented somewhere in reliable sources, you are just posting your observations. Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, single character from a single film with original research and NPOV issues. Fails notability and a glut of plot. Notability does not inherit and the character does not stand alone from the film. The two little bits of real world info (costume design and toy line), if properly cited, belong in the main article.  I don't even see any sign that an attempt was ever made to include a proper character section in the main article with coverage of this character, despite the film article being barely above stub level.  Collectonian (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why you insolent little twerp: Barely above stub level? It's the stuff of Good articles! All it needs is an image and a few citations. Furthermore there is no "glut of plot", there is a swift analysis of the character's role in the film, there is plenty of notability because as I have stated the character is an iconic character from a culturally significant film. And as the character is the most notable character in the film and has been featured in other media (an episode of the cult television programme Family Guy for one) he does indeed stand alone from the film. Additionally I don't know what you mean by "two little bits of real world info" when the article references the actors who play the characters, the section about the voice, a popular culture section and takes on a detatched formal tone throughout. --Illustrious One (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Illustrious One, please refrain from personal attacks. No one has said anything about you or directed any criticism towards anything but this article, and several times during this debate you have resorted to base name-calling and personal attack on editors themselves.  Please read the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and civility and ownership of articles, and kindly abide by them.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I realise I have made a few insults but I haven't made any personal attacks per ce. I haven't made personal remarks about anyone I've just called people "idiots, imbeciles, buffoons and insolent twerps" and accused them of lacking brains. That's not personal, it's just offensive. If I called one of the users fat that would be a personal attack. Furthermore I'm not being possessive of the article. I am happy for people to contribute to it, I want people to edit it, what I don't want them to do is delete it and a few times during this discussion I have lost my temper when I have felt people are missing the point and violated the laws of civility. I apologise. By the way Collectonian, sorry about calling you an insolent little twerp, I didn't realise you were talking about the Legend article when you said it was barely above stub level, I thought you were talking about this one. --Illustrious One (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think you would appreciate it if someone accused you of being an idiot, buffoon, imbecile, or the like so it would be best to leave out all types of attacks whether personal or offensive. Also, please understand that Wikipedia is an open edit encyclopedia. I'm sure you noticed the disclaimer,If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it., so that it includes deletion. You want people to add, but not delete from your work? I highly recommend reading up on WP:NPA and WP:OWN. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I wouldn't. I'm sorry. Furthermore I don't mind people adding or removing things to/from the article. I just don't want them to delete the whole thing because I think it is informative, interesting and useful. That's my humble opinion anyway. I don't mind if people mercilessly edit or redistribute it for profit, etc, just so long as they don't eradicate it. If you did delete the article it would not be the end of the world admittedly but I would be quite annoyed as would a number of other people I believe. I hereby withdraw my insults and in return I hope you will take my points on the article's notability into account. I agree that a few more citations and/or external links would help. --Illustrious One (talk) 01:11, 22 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.