Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sportacus


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sportacus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This should be deleted because first of all, it only has two sources. Also, the page has multiple problems.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is yet another case of perspective-based lack of familiarity being used as a cudgel in the neverending crusade of deletionism. The submitter may not know who Sportacus is, but I expect tons of other Wikipedians do. I could see supporting a merge and redirect into another article, but not outright removal. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Case in point, the actor-athlete who plays the character won his nation's lifetime achievement award for portraying this character. If that doesn't support notability, I don't know what does. I suspect if it had been an Emmy or a Grammy or a BAFTA the submitter would not think this was non-notable.
 * Keep The article has two sources now, making the one source claim moot. The other problems should be fixed, but they do not warrant the article to be deleted.--Snaevar (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that both of you look up further sources (preferably third-party, reliable sources that show how this subject has received significant coverage). The article only has two sources right now, which does not adequately secure its notability. One is for the show's official website and does not help in supporting notability, while the Time one is helpful, but a single source cannot be cited to support the need for and notability of an entire article. The Time source is dead and needs to be revive through a website archive. The information about the actor winning his nation's lifetime achievement award for his character is important, but if there is not further information about the character himself (either from the production or reception angles), then the information about the award could easily be covered in the article for the show without the need for this particular article. Either way, the information about the award and sourcing to support is not present in the article currently. Here are some ideas for sources to use from a brief Google search (I have not read through this articles so some of them may not be useful; also, double-check to see if they are reliable or not. I believe a majority of them are, but it always good to make absolutely sure), but I would highly encourage both of you to look for more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Remember sources are key to prevent articles from being deleted. It appears to me that this character has received significant coverage in some way, but I am not completely certain either way to cast a vote. Throwing accusations against the nominator is generally not a good idea. Good luck with this! I apologize for the long message and jumping on this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment @User:Aoba47: Let me clarify. By mentioning that the article has two sources, I am only making the point that even though the article had one source at the time of nomination, it did not when I voted. There is no hidden agenda here, just mentioning that the article has changed since then. The other problem, that it has too much focus on the fictional aspect, is an styling issue and is not mentioned in Deletion policy. It is not mentioned in any guideline or policy as an reason for deletion. Sure, it does warrant the article to have an maintainance tag, but nothing more. Please, ask first when you think that I have not given an argument behind my statements.
 * Also, take a look at Special:Diff/769681616.--Snaevar (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you are reacting so negatively to my above post as I am not commenting on you having a "hidden agenda" or that you "have not given an argument behind your statements". I am merely offering advice about handling an AfD. I do not believe that your reason to keep the article is strong, particularly this part (the article has two sources now, making the one source claim moot). The two sources provided in the article do not adequately cover the "source claim" as they do not adequately show by themselves that this subject has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources (and both links are dead so that also needs to be fixed through a website archive most likely). I have seen that you have added additional sources since that comment and put in a "Reception" section, which I think will be extremely helpful when proving this article's notability and reason to not be deleted. If an article is entirely focused on in-universe information, it could actually be a reason for someone to nominate it for deletion as he or she may not believe there is enough information to create out-of-universe information/sections. I am honestly just surprised at the tone of your comment. I was just trying to help by offering advice and some sources that you could use; no reason to be negative to someone who tried to help. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the character is well known enough to deserve a page, and the current level of sourcing seems perfectly adequate. Jaxyking (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as there appears to be enough sources to justify this having a separate article. It still needs a lot of work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2017 (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.