Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sark (Tron)


 * 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   redirect and merge to a page to be determined. Tan     39  20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sark (Tron)

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

Short article consisting primarily of in-universe information and trivia. While this is a primary character in the movie (and in Kingdom Hearts II), the character has little to no demonstrated real-world notability and is already summarized at an appropriate level in the main articles for his respective appearances. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI
 * Articles for deletion/Bit (character)
 * Articles for deletion/Master Control Program (Tron)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of significant coverage, meaning "that sources address the subject directly in detail" (emphasis mine). Any useful information should be imparted on the parent article, Tron (film). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor and non-notable in real world. Already covered in parent articles article. No seperate article needed. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor non-notable character that has not received coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Article is almost entirely summary of the character's role in the plot. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in some capacity. If information can be placed in the main article or already exists in the main article then it can be merged and redirected, but I see no reason for outright redlinking this article, especiallly due to improvements and notability to a real world audience.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge; there may enough content to warrant a separate article, but I'm unsure whether there's significant room for expansion. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as Merge into Characters of Tron. This is a well-known movie that has real-world popular cultural success. The main article has no characters section, likely because these minor character articles exist. Marge them together as a split off the main Tron article. Banj e  b oi   09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the Nominator's comments - being the main character in Tron and Kingdom Hearts II is an obvious indication of notability. Lack of sources, excess plot summary, and trivia are not reasons for deltion, they are reasons for improvement. Edward321 (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or at least merge and redirect to Tron (film) or a new Characters of Tron article per Benjiboi. Sark is a main character in a relatively popular film, and the article cites academic sources. Even if the notability of this character isn't sufficiently independent of the film, there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability when an appropriate merge target exists. DHowell (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 06:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually not true based on the improvements to the article. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the sources are referencing the film he appeared in, his actor, and that he will appear in a future film. That is not "significant coverage". sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is significant enough for Wikipedia. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not, and until you understand what does constitute significant coverage, then there's no point in continuing this discussion. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is significant by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By your standard, not by Wikipedia's standard. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By Wikipedias standards as interpreted by all the editors arguing to keep above, as well as who created and worked on the article, or who come here to read it. A vocal minority wanting to delete should not trump that reality.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad populum. WP:NOTE is a fait accompli. Change NOTE or don't bother trying to act like it doesn't exist. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules, especially ones that lack actual community support. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IAR is not carte blanche to blatantly ignore any rule you see fit. And the opinion of one random user means squat here. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that editors can't even agree whether or not to mark that formerly proposed fiction notability guideline an essay or historical, etc. suggests that there simply is no actual community consensus on what constitutes fictional notability. The opinion of the quoted editor is an opinion shared by others, i.e. he's not alone in the sentiment and I care most about the opinion of those who work on these articles and come here to read them as they contribute to other articles, become donors, etc.  So long as the article is not a total hoax or something, I see no reason why it couldn't exist as a spinoff or sub-article or at least be redirected.  What I don't see is some pressing need to redlink it.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad populum, again. And if you want a redirect, make one if the article is deleted. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors matter. You don't need to delete an article to redirect; redirectable articles should not also be deleted unless there is some serious issue that prevents the public from seeing the edit history.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you even read the essays you cite? That one deals specifically with pages in the userspace that go to MfD. It has no relevance to this discussion. And I don't care about the redirect, it's irrelevant to the discussion. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The essay states right on top, "Wikipedia's most important resource is its contributors. When considering the value of content in projectspace and userspace, don't just inflexibly apply policies and guidelines; think about the impact of the content on editors' feelings, and whether deleting the content may drive them away." (my italics) Redirecting is relevant, because it shows that if anything we should have a redirect discussion on the article's talk page, but that we don't need a deletion discussion.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and perhaps merge into characters of Tron. Sources exist to meet WP:N's requirements. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2008 (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.