Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ori (Stargate)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)    Kadzi    (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ori (Stargate)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:GNG. The citations here are mostly gateworld.net (a fansite) and links to other articles in violation of WP:CIRCULAR. When looking for sources I found books that republish Wikipedia (WP:MIRROR) so those are no good. The few citations from Screenrant.com don't convince me that the topic of the Ori is notable. This is just more fancruft. Deletion would prevent this ongoing problem where a redirect would not without the redirect being protected. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - While I'd like to think the Ori were a notable enough element of the Stargate franchise that there would be enough third-party coverage of them to merit their own article, that's not what I'm seeing when I look at the article. Unfortunate. DonIago (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But if an article should be kept of deleted should not be based on the current state of an article, but on the existance of source about the subject overall. And such sources exist, though they have not been used for the article so far - see below. Daranios (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be why it was a weak delete. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But isn't even a weak delete based on "the sources are not in the article", when such sources exist, in direct contradiction of the WP:CONTN guideline? Daranios (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do I feel as though I'm being put on trial? I gave it a weak delete because given the age of the article and the lack of sources, I thought it possible that there weren't such sources but I wasn't sure. If I was sure there weren't such sources I would have given it a non-weak delete. If I get a compelling sense that other editors feel the sources sufficiently demonstrate notability, perhaps I'll strike my vote entirely. Good enough? DonIago (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, thanks for your willingness to look at future development, and sorry if it came on like that. Does it help if I say this is not at all meant personally, but just the wish to examine your opinion? And that comes from my recent bad experiences of contributors putting in opinions ignoring contrary evidence. So, sorry again, I don't quite want to let it lie, but rather would be interested what you yourself think about the sources that have been found so far? Daranios (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your motivations. Unfortunately examining the strengths of sourcing isn't really one of my strong suits. I also don't have the time to look at them currently, but I didn't want to leave your kind message unanswered. If you'd like, you'd be welcome to drop a message at my Talk page and I can try to take a look at them this week. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator found screenrant as one source, but was there also a search in Google Scholar? So far I have found two in-depth sources there: The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader has a chapter comparing the Ori and the Ancients; The Emancipation of the Soul analyses the metaphorical significance of the Ori as a science-fiction trope and more. These three together should satisfy WP:GNG. Then Science Fiction Experiences comments on the Ori from the view-point of the TV watcher. And there are a number of shorter appearances in secondary sources, e.g., , . Daranios (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Daranios' sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  04:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - from what I read, it seems to be a two-season primary antagonist. Because of the fragmentation of information within an episodic, narrative medium like television, a summary article like this seems appropriate. No opinion on the present content. -- Netoholic @ 07:27, 23 July 2020 (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.