Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roca Skolia


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Roca Skolia

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

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 08:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 08:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep Central character in a series that has won several awards, including two Nebula Awards. Edward321 (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * nb: one of those Nebulas was for an unrelated work, and the other was for a novella (which this character may not even appear in). Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as on of the most central characters of the Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Otherwise merge per previous editor. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * nb: Saga of the Skolian Empire already redirects to the author's page. Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * merge or keep if important enough in the story.  Any significant character in a notable work  should get a one or two paragraph description.  We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia  in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And,   there is certainly no   valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect.    Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia.  DGG (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no real world importance even asserted. Savidan 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no valid reasons for keeping presented. Abductive (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions How many books has she featured a significant role in, and how major is she in the plots of the overall series?  D r e a m Focus  20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep as per Edward321 in previous discussion. While the article needs work this character is very important to the series. RP459 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Create an article about the book series and merge. I have little knowledge of the subject but the series seems to be fairly notable, so giving them an article of their own would be reasonable. The character can be added there. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about *you* create an article about the book series and merge? The work onus is on those who want coverage. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete.That the series is notable that doesn't imply the character is as well. No sign of significance outside the book series. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainty no sign in that article ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edward321. Significant character in major series by award-winning writer. Given the extent to which Asaro's fiction has been written about and reviewed, particularly offline, the issue is not whether sufficient sources exist, but whether the fact that such sources don't turn up easily in Google searches justifies deletion of the article. The New York Review of Science Fiction isn't online, nor is Locus, nor Foundation, nor Extrapolation, nor many of the other sources where the needed sourcing can be expected, including even the review columns from the popular sf/f magazines.  The fact that coverage isn't online doesn't make it insignificant.  And, the last time I looked, WP:DELETEBECAUSETOOHARDTOLOOKUPBECAUSEITSNOTINDEXEDBYGOOGLE wasn't policy. (Maybe that's too sarcastic. But too many of these fiction discussions simply ignore the fact that there's a significant universe of sources that aren't Google-accessible. Book review indexes, for example, which are usually proprietary databases sold to libraries and colleges, for example.)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the book series that deserves an article in my opinion, this character can be merged there. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Covering all the books in a series article would be an improvement over the mess this stuff is now. Go for it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment — The so-called article does not even say that this is a fictional character; that's only in the tags at the top. The "keeps" are empty obstructionism. This fictional universe warrants no more than articles on the author and the books; the rest is just fancruft. Delete ;) — Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply comment. Actually the article describes its subject as a fictional character rather plainly in the opening sentence. And your characterization of other editors' opinions borders on the uncivil, and implies a lack of good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ya, um, no. You are assuming that readers know that the "Skolian Empire" is fictional — for all one knows from that sentence, it's like the "Roman Empire" and she could be like an Historian. Good luck with that wiki-lawyering ;) Jack Merridew 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point out a Wikipedia article where an established actual person, living or dead, is introduced as originating in the books of author X, just as this character is introduced as being in "the Saga of the Skolian Empire books by Catherine Asaro." The import of the sentence is clear, as is the unfortunately and unnecessarily derisive tone of your comments. Mocking other Wikipedia editors and gratuitously challenging their good faith does far more damage to Wikipedia than the presence of the supposedly inappropriate articles you decry.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "import" of this character, *is* clear: zip . You have Good Faith?™ ;) Oh, nb: it doesn't say "originating". Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what is your problem with simple civility? If you're going to wikilawyer over the clear meaning of every word in the comments of people who don't agree with you, you're just contributing to the incivility problems here. Nobody here accuses you of mindless behavior or challenges your good faith, but somehow you act like sticking metaphorical pins into people is more important than discussing substance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm being perfectly civil in my view that there is nothing of substance in yon worthless article; Delete as Nominator. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The character played a notable role in a bestselling series.  D r e a m Focus  18:19, 31 July 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.