Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by IQ (2nd nomination)

I arrived at this AfD too late to participate. I will say, however, that I oppose the deletion of this article. The topic is rational, and the information is verifiable. I am also angered at the hardline reading of "no original research." The spirit of NOI is to prevent people from writing about their own experiences. "I was there" is not allowable. But what *is* allowable is quoting or refering to a primary resources. Scripts are primary resources. That is not original research. Kingturtle (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But you need a reason why you are going through primary sources and extracting particular facts. Nerfari (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As I said in my vote, I feel sorry for the people who went to honest effort to compile the list as if it was encyclopaedic, but it was fundamentally misconceived as a topic and the quality of the list didn't matter. However, if anybody wants to take the list and publish it elsewhere (where there is no requirement to be encyclopaedic) then that would be a great way to avoid the effort being wasted entirely. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the double standard of allowing the Holy Bible to count as a usable primary resource, but a novel or a tv script is forbidden. Television episodes and the like are acceptable sources per WP:PSTS. Also, the concept of this article was not fundamentally misconceived. The article topic provided a specific criteria for inclusion. I can understand desires to improve the quality of the article, but deleting it was an awful solution. Kingturtle (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize you're a bureaucrat and I don't mean to insult you, but what are you trying to accomplish here by commenting on the talk page of a closed AFD where consensus was clear? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was a hardline reading of NOI, how many ways can you interpret: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic."? The very section of NOI you linked to start off by saying "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.". Both the letter and the spirit of the policy is very clear on this point. Chillum  02:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctorfluffy, my being a bureaucrat should never give me any privileges or advantages in article creation, editing or deletion. I'm just here as an editor who came in too late for the actual debate. The only thing I am trying to accomplish is stating my opinion on this AfD. I will live with the consensus, but I am not happy about it. I am anxious about other articles getting put on the chopping block for the same issue. I am also concerned that some articles get a free NOI pass while others do not. Kingturtle (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your posting here was constructive, there is no reason not to have a dialog about a debate once it is over.


 * I am also concerned at articles getting a free pass at NOI when they should not. Looking at the first AfD for this article gives a good hint why, lack of proper reason and policy based argument and too much personal opinion on what should be an objective decision. If one is not very clear about policy when nominating such articles then ILIKEIT takes over.


 * Original research is a real bane to the integrity of our encyclopedia. We should all seek to keep Wikipedia free of it. You say you are worried about some being unfairly deleted while others that should be are not. I am wondering what the distinction between the two types are? Chillum  13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We are both concerned about the same issue, but we are both on very different sides of the issue. I want more articles to be given NOI leeway and you want less. This puts me in a bit of a predicament, because if I give specific examples, that might expose them to possible AfDs.


 * In regards to NOI, I think it is meant to prevent people from using their own first-hand accounts or non-published first-hand accounts as references, and to prevent people from expressing their own interpretations of primary resources. However, I do not believe quoting (without interpretation) a fact from a book or a screenplay violates NOI. For example, in the article Moby-Dick, the book Moby Dick itself is used as a reference. In fact, besides that reference to the actual text, there are no other citations used in the Plot section. Is that original research? Should we be referencing Spark Notes there, a secondary, published source? Kingturtle (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize being a bureaucrat doesn't give you any special privileges in this regard. I explicitly stated your user group because it usually indicates one has in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia practices and I was concerned about insulting you as my comment was intended to point out that you're drawing out a discussion that has reached a firm resolution. I disagree with Chillum regarding the constructiveness of this exchange. This is heading away from the article in question and turning into a policy critique and, aside from a few people who still have the AFD watchlisted, no one will ever see it. If it's something you feel strongly about, why not move to a more appropriate venue? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No insults were ever heard :) As for this conversation, I bring it up specifically in regards to this AfD. My opinion is in the minority, but I hold that this article should have been kept, and any references to primary sources should have been okay. Kingturtle (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree fully that "quoting (without interpretation) a fact from a book or a screenplay" is not a violation of no original research. The policy is clear that primary sources can be used for such things. It is the topic itself that requires secondary sources. The fact that no independent source has ever noted upon the subject of comparative IQs of fictional characters is what makes this article original research, not that it had facts supported only by primary sources. We should not be inventing topics that do not already exist outside of Wikipedia, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.


 * To Doctorfluffy, I find this exchange of value and if Kingturtle does as well then that is enough. This is a great venue for discussing the deletion in question after the fact. If we were seeking to change policy or dispute the deletion then other venues would be more appropriate, but we are just discussing the finer points of things. Chillum  15:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)