Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turaga (Bionicle) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Seraphim&hearts; Whipp  00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Turaga (Bionicle)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Aside from a short intro section this is essentially a list of characters, which is both permissable and actually encouraged under WP:FICT. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note that the previous AFD was closed a little less than 2 months ago with a "no consenus" although this was in part a judgement call by the closing editor who felt too many of the keep arguments didn't relate to policy. To others, it could look like a snowball keep. 23skidoo (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And as there has been no improvement, and the keep arguments had no relation to policy, here we are again. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I'm not doing what I often do in such cases and recommend keep, because the last AFD was rather ambiguous. But someone looking at it might take it as a snowball on first glance. 23skidoo (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:59, 6 May 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) 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

*Delete, just plot summary without notability (i.e. independent, reliable sources). Graevemoore (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent, reliable secondary sources; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck comment made by banned user. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  16:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A lengthy plot summary for non-notable entities. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: SOFIXIT, Give an article a chance,  Potential, not just current state, and  User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy all seem to apply here.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete an unverifiable plot summary with no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Jakew (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * These seem like reliable sources. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Appearances can be deceiving, especially when there is no demonstrated proof that any of those books are anything but plot regurgitation in an in-universe way, or novels of bionicle, which don't count either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all but one appear to be fiction, "produced ... under license from the LEGO Group" (to quote from one), and hence can only used for plot summaries, and lack the third-party nature required to demonstrate notability. The first, "The Imagination Challenge", has some potential, but by itself does not demonstrate notability. Jakew (talk) 20:56, 19 May 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.