Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarman


 * 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   Redirected to Return of the Living Dead (film series). If there's actually anything encyclopedic to be merged there, then it can be. Black Kite 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tarman

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

Delete article about supporting character from a horror film. This character does not warrant a separate article. Doczilla STOMP! 16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. And merge into the living dead series article. Renee (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to The Return of the Living Dead, where the character was introduced. Just from a procedural standpoint, you can't "merge and delete", since doing so breaks the chain of the GFDL. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable character which has not received substantial from reliable sources independent of the subject, and the article is mostly plot summary with some OR commentary about the creature's appearance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Return of the Living Dead (film series). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Return of the Living Dead (film series). -- MakE  shout! 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a wholly non-notable character, merging would only detract from Return of the Living Dead (film series). RMHED (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks independent notability, warrants nothing beyond a mention in the relevant plot summaries and cast lists. No redirect required. Is he even called "Tarman" in the official credits? I don't believe the character is referred to by that name in dialogue. Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I must admit my amusement at seeing his profession listed as "eating brains." Otto4711 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable character that is very much so. Razorflame 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable fictional character covered verifiable in reliable sources. Consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep And I'm going to take the time to write a damn good rationale rationale.
 * It's verifiable, even if those are primary sources and not secondary ones, no interpretation is required (see here). It's neutral.
 * "'Fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google.  I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it.  (I certainly don't.)  It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia.  What is it that makes this encyclopedic?  It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.  (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms). - Jimbo Wales"
 * There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Search Engine Test, which was used here, meaning that individual assessments of notability will display systemic bias. "Non-notable" is generally a non-NPOV designation. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included.


 * The policy associated with wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not discriminate against notability. The policy lists specific things that articles cannot be - none of these taboos mention that non-notable aren't allowed.-- Phoenix -  wiki  18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand Jimbo's point, but obscure scientific concepts are not comparable to fictional characters. It should be quite easy to establish notability for a fictional character since reliable sources independent of the subject should be abundant for supposedly notable, popular culture topics that millions of people are aware of (as compared to the few 1000 people that Jimbo mentions for Qubit Field Theory). I have yet to see any such sources and, lack of notability aside, without them I don't see how this article can be expanded beyond plot summary and original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is referenced with primary sources, so it isn't really OR, though secondary sources would be more desireable, and I'm sure there are many. Apart from taht, i don't think it's right to delete an article because it can't be expanded.-- Phoenix -  wiki  20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it cannot be expanded beyond plot summary and OR then per WP:NOT there is no content that is suitable for Wikipedia and deletion is the only choice. I suppose the portion on his appearance might not appear to be OR in the strictest sense, but it's merely somebody's commentary detailing the look of character throughout the series. I still don't really see how this creature is notable though without supporting sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete/Redirect  There appeared to be sufficient weight to support a redirect before it was relisted. The character itself is not a main one. As we have quite a bit of precedence on redirecting or deleting minor film or TV characters, I believe this is no exception. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add that shows often have spill-over articles about minor characters. A solution could be to merge the article to List of minor characters in Return of the Living Dead (film series) or somesuch. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge the one or two real-world sentences into Return of the Living Dead (film series) and redirect. The character seems very unlikely to ever be able to support his own article. – sgeureka t•c 13:22, 8 June 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.