Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirage (Aladdin)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mirage (Aladdin)

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

Character is not notable, and the article is essentially just a plot summary with some fancruft. SilentAria talk 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, as well as the fact that some of them have already been tagged for their lack of sources since 2008:


 * Delete These were at AfD last August as part of a larger batch of characters. The AfD was speedy kept; mostly because Aladdin, Jasmine, and Iago were also in that batch and they were deemed major characters. While I agree that they should stay I can't ascertain the notability of these minor characters as there's been little to no independant in-depth discussion of them in reliable, thrid-party sources.  Them From  Space  15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I do like Mirage a lot, but none of these characters meet the notability criteria as they haven't been covered in sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge some of this information into the existing part of the main article. If it gets too long, split out the characters portion. The redirects will always be appropriate, so a nomination for total deletion is out of place. And even if you thing the one line descriptions already there are adequate. I am not going to defend keeping character articles like these, and I really hope people will similarly not try to delete the material.DGG (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and source and consider a merge as a last resort. Minor characters can be notable, and if they are too stubby they can be merged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree. There is no reason not to let characters from a notable series have their own pages, if they have enough information to fill one.  Any merger would result in the lost of a significant portion of the article.   D r e a m Focus  19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And such loss is a good thing, as those details do not meet Wikipedia's criteria. Please see WP:NOT and etc. DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT was never passed by any reasonable number of people, there no wikipedia wide vote. Its just a gang of people who got together one day and changed things, and argue nonstop against any reasonable change, until others simply give up in frustration.  Of course its just a guideline, not a policy, so you can ignore it.  It is a suggestion to help people determine what to do, not an absolute law.   D r e a m Focus  01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all, massive failure of notability and reliable independent sourcing. DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep at least two of them, which are more notable than the others (the two that have toys, for example), but all of these are at least redirectable if not mergeable per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Remember, deletion is considered a last resort for hoaxes, copy vios, and libel, i.e. things that cannot be redirected anywhere or that contains damaging information that we don't want public.  We don't delete based on WP:JNN or WP:ITSCRUFT.  Nominator has said, “I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting the articles.”  Please note that if I merge anything we cannot delete per the GFDL.  Otherwise, subjects can't really fail WP:NOT, which lacks community consensus as evidence by the dispute that resulted in its protection to resolve the dispute as well as a recent RfC in which more editors (over sixty!) opposed it.  Anyway, due to the overwhelming notability of the characters as confirmed through reliable independent sourcing, we should either keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please take a closer look at what I said in that link provided. I said that I am not really opposed to merging/redirecting, "should the consensus deem it so". I also said that "I don't see anything that can really be merged from them". Perhaps I'm not very good at explaining things clearly, but those statements do not mean that I believe that merging/redirecting is a better solution for these problematic articles than deletion. I still stand by my nomination and firmly believe that the articles should be deleted based on WP:NOTE (as well as WP:V and WP:WAF), and WP:PLOT, disputed or no. Please don't use your interpretation of my words to justify a "Keep" vote. --SilentAria talk 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They pass WP:NOTE as well as WP:V, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT, however. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all, extremely minor characters from a film. Fails WP:N, WP:NOT, and goes against WP:WAF. Would not be acceptable within the main film article(s) either per WP:MOSFILM, so no place that it can/should be merged. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They are actually from multiple films and some are not just in the film, but also made as toys. Moreover, they meet WP:N due to their multiple appeareances in toys and films as verified inr eliable sources, pass WP:NOT due to the out of universe information in the articles as well. There is absolutely NO valid reason why even at worst we would not redirect. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Notability is not established by being in the television series. Significant coverage is what establishes notability. These are all very minor characters, within any of the series. Having a toy from a series that had toys of everything in it doesn't make it notable either. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collectonian here. As per WP:NOTE: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." --SilentAria talk 01:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are discussed in multiple reliable sources, in addition to appearing in a multifilm franchise and as toys is what makes these major characters notable. We don't outright redlink things unless they are hoaxes, copy vios, or libelous. Now, looking at MOSFILM, it gives the example of brief prose paragraphs for the characters. I cannot imagine any reason why we would not merge the cited information that I added to nearly all of the above to any or all of the following per that guideline: The_Return_of_Jafar, Aladdin_and_the_King_of_Thieves, and/or Aladdin_(television_series).  Obviously editors come here searching for this information, so they are legitimate search terms and I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to merge the references to these sections of the main articles that are currently unsourced.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * weak keep or merge needs sourcing regardless. Really hard to find sources because of the very common names. Ikip (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * merge into List Of ... Characters. No need for separate articles on these minor characters. SpikeJones (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All - in-universe fancruft with no assertion of real-world notability whatsoever. Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when the articles contain out of universe information that asserts real-world notability. Please be honest.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment These characters are featured in movies, television series, and books, coloring books, and comic books, as well as toys, stickers, posters, and other merchandise. They are notable, and there is enough information on the article pages to warrant their own articles.   D r e a m Focus  16:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete then redirect to the series. In the realityverse no reliable soruces establish independent notability for this fictional being apart from the work of fiction it inhabits.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is not true if you look at the articles that cite reliable sources, such as reviews. Please be sure to check references before commenting.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I sure did check. As i said, trivial name-checks in plot summaries et al do not make fictional characters worthy of their own encyclopedia articles. Please don't make assumptions about what others have read or not read.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you did check then you would see non-trivial commentaries in not just plot summaries but about who played as these main characters in some episodes and films and about how they were made into toys. Anyone even remotely familiar with this subject would know that we have at worst mergeable information.  Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is entirely unsourced. Therefore, nothing to "merge." If you want to write sourced info and place it into the article on the series, or some "list of characters" then go ahead. I accept that we disagree but leave off on telling me what i saw or what i "would see". I checked, i saw, i drew my own conclusions. You did likewise and came to a different conclusion. Fine.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not only discussing Mirage, which I agree needs more sources, but the other ones listed above, those of which actually do have sources from secondary independent sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear: None of these articles have sufficient reliable sourcing behind them that would establish these fictional persons as independently notable from the works of fiction they inhabit. That's my take. Again, I accept that you disagree.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just not true, because they appear in both films, a television series, and as toys and are covered as such in reviews of these. You can make a case that the information is limited enough to justify merging the sourced information per the MOS cited above to shorter character lists and redirecting, but there's no reason, no pressing need to delete the edit history per WP:PRESERVE.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Stating an opinion that characters in a mass-marketed multi-million dollar franchise are not notable, and then quoting an essay as a reason for deletion, is perhaps not the best way to approach article improvement. Per the editing policy WP:PRESERVE and the essay WP:POTENTIAL, ongoing efforts are being undertaken to meet the nom's concerns, as improving the project is the goal of every editor. Though some feel that "improving" requires the removal of every article that is not yet up to code... it is far better if one accepts an understanding that such articles eventually do become improved. And it must be remembered that policy and guidelne do not mandate that it must be done within some arbitrary timeline... only that there is a reasonable and common sense presumption among contributing editors that it can be done. Though AfD is not intended to as a bludgeon to force cleanup, it improves Wikipedia to allow the process to continue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I admire your ability to link so many times in one paragraph, but do you have anything to say about the articles in question? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply offering my opinion and suporting it with policy and guideline. I link to guideline for those editors who seem sometimes to forget that they are meant to exist as a coherent unit acting to improve the project and promote growth of an encyclopdia. About the articles specifically... and in simple terms... alowing continued improvement improves wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge in the manner DGG suggests above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * merge, keep as redirect per DGG. I know some people hate per responses, but DGG's reasoning is so clear, I could not have said it better. I would go on to say that this is a topic within a greater subject, and that coverage of that subject is more complete with the merger w/ redirect than w/o it.  Dloh  cierekim  23:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep essentially per DGG. An omnibus list with short entries is the way to go here (either as part of the main series article or spun off).  These characters don't need there own articles, but they are potentially useful redirects to the (small amount of) content that Wikipedia should have on them.  Eluchil404 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment even with the cleanup effort, I don't see any real-world notability established in these articles, which is required by WP:WAF. If this doesn't get shown the articles should still be deleted.  I think this should be the number one priority for anybody trying to "rescue" these.  Them  From  Space  21:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:WAF does allow "when an article gets long (see Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article" as "completely normal Wikipedia procedure", and grants that such spin-offs "may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements." It recommends that the spin-off should be concise... and THAT is a matter for cleanup, not deletion or a merge back... both being opitions that do not require an AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which have been refuted. "Too many articles" is not a valid reason for deletion.  Please stop trolling AfDs and instead consider the actual merits of the individual articles under discussion.  Thank you.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all the information, merge it or whatever, but deletion is totally out of line. The constant deletion nominations of fiction are turning Wikipedia into a warzone, divisive cr*p, is somebody making a WP:POINT?  All this energy could be spent constructively, improving whatever articles people find worthy but lacking, advancing the project. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once characters have toys that are mass marketed at McDonald's - the world's largest resteraunt chain complete with advertising campaigns - we can be rather assured they have met a certain threshold of notability. Obviously it would help prevent future noms if the real world impact was spelled out a bit better but I hate to see articles degrade just to serve as deterents to deletion. The lede could subtly point out these issues with notability spelled out in the text below. -- Banj e  b oi   17:11, 26 May 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.