Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Deedle


 * 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. JForget 00:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Deedle

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable fanfic character from unauthorized knock-off of the Harry Potter series. Nom on behalf of editor 98.248.33.198, "Fictional character from an unauthorized continuation which exists only on the web. See also James Potter II."  Acroterion  (talk)  22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Subtracting wikis, the fanfic writer's name, the two fanfic pieces, there's one Google hit in a list of names unrelated to Harry Potter. Requiring the author's name, but subtracting wikis, youtube, scribd, facebook, and the author's own website, one gets a non-notable blog, a wiki (still), and two hosts of the PDF of the fanfic.  Completely non-notable, no reliable sources, no verification, original research and article creator still made this after repeated warnings about doing this kind of thing. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – The article fails to give enough information for an editor (much less a reader) to start to form an opinion of keep/delete/merge based on this first question:  Is this a canonical or non-canonical (fanfic) character in the Harry Potter fictional universe?  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I was able to determine, "Ralph Deedle" is exclusively a character in the fanfiction of one "author" and did not ever appear in Rowling's books. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct; this is a character from fanfiction, and an obscure one at that. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - totally non-notable original character from a fanfiction work which is only marginally notable because of some fuss over whether it was quasi-authorized (or at least not aggressively prosecuted). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – That's odd. Schizombie's confirmation of my impression above re-enforces a "delete feeling" under this argument:  A work of fanfic needs to have its own article first under WP:N before a WP:SS article about a character can be considered; that is, no article about the fanfic work, therefor no article about the character from the fanfic work.  You're information, Orangemike, changes "that good ole' delete feelin'" massively to a "strong keep feeling":  If there is any real world information, in particular legal information (you used the word "prosecuted" in context), as opposed to WP:IN-U information, about this fictional character, suddenly  WP:N is met despite the work itself being fanfic.  My feeling is becoming N, N, N, and more N, based on what you wrote.  If you have information about "quasi-authorization and/or a parenthetical lack of prosecution" and have withheld the information from the article about the character, I detest the move under WP:CENS, Fair use, and a whole godly host of other policies, guidelines, and essays that say we are here to build an encyclopedia based on information, not destroy one.  This is a reason to keep, not delete, since both WP:IN-U can be met by providing the real world information and WP:GNG can be satisfied by documenting that a controversy existed at all.  Your own comment should be in the article in the first place (with a source, of course).  Withholding information from the reader with "little or no knowledge of the subject" is precisely the opposite of what the encyclopedia was designed to do.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whaaaa? - you seem to have completely misunderstood me, Aladdin! The character is not even marginally notable. The fanfic in which he appears is arguably marginally notable, and all the relevant information is in that article already. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm perplexed by Aladdin Sane's comment as well. There is an article on the fanfic, James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing.  The notability of that is debatable; I'm not submitting an AfD on it.  The character in the fanfic is not notable.  See e.g. Notability (books) "while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not," Manual of Style (writing about fiction) "Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles" (emphasis in original); and in fact in this case the parent article is not even long enough to justify spinning out a stub. I'm also wondering to a degree about advert or spam here, since multiplying the number of articles about a fanfic could be seen as trying to unduly promote that fanfic, but they aren't quite entirely applicable and WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:BKD are sufficient. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * reply - you have good call to wonder about spam/advertising, since the article was created by an s.p.a. whose primary purpose seems to be to advertise this piece of fanfic beyond its notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible that it's just a fan who's unclear on policies, guidelines, etc., although with the repeated talk page comments that have been given, there is at least cause to wonder, but then it could still just be the case of a persistent fan who feels WP:IAR applies; who knows? *shrug* Ultimately not that important what the cause is, unless this persists even further. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Orange Mike. Shadowjams (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per  Orange Mike, as non-notable, and without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (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.