- 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. Less obvious candidate for deletion than the others nominated in this tranche, so no prejudice to recreation if the GScholar sources mentioned are incorporated and raise the article above the notability bar. Yunshui 雲水 09:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cordelia Naismith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined prod, so now we get to waste our time here. I don't think there is anything here to even warrant merging, this is pure unreferenced fancruft that fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a list of the proposed deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - It makes little sense to delete this article when there are still dozens of articles for individual characters in Harry Potter, a far inferior literary work. The proposed deletion criteria do not conform to WP:N or WP:V -- the article contains extensive secondary sourcing (not just primary sourcing) which establish that the character is notable and not just in an in-universe setting. A thorough WP:BEFORE search would have uncovered these citations if indeed one was performed prior to the current blitz of AFD prods. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which secondary source is included in this article? All I see are the books and things written by Lois Mcmaster Bujold on her website. Rockphed (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (and delete the whole slew too). This one at least pretends to have sources (most of the other Vorkosigan articles nominated for deletion didn't even have a reference section), but they are all either the books she appears in or things written by the author of said books. Alas, much as I love me some manic-dwarf-trainwreck-chess science fiction, I don't think society has noticed this awesomeness. I will happily change my mind if somebody finds some sources, but the only keep vote on any of them is, essentially an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Rockphed (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga as preferred WP:ATD. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are not the only options with these. If you're concerned about saving time, boldly redirecting might work. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. A simple GScholar search turns up at least two dozen essays or books discussing the character. The Vorkosigian books are one of the most acclaimed series in recent science fiction, and have written about and reviewed extensively in genre, mainstream and academic sources. It's plain as day that neither the nominator nor any of the delete !voters have made more than the most perfunctory efforts to comply with the principles behind WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you list those pieces? WP:BEFORE also asks that you read them, so please don't just throw google hits at us, and explain how many paragraphs or such are dedicated to her in each of those pieces. You remember, of course, that mentions in passing generally don't help with making topics notable? My sampling of the GScholar sources (sadly, even through I have access to a university network and I use Library Genesis as a backup search, some of those works are inaccessible even for me) sadly ended up with only mentions in passing that don't go beyond a fictional summary of the character's biography. There are several paragraphs about her in in the chapter 'THE MOTHER-LODE: CORDELIA' but the work of JB Croft but they seem to be almost entirely a fictional character biography with little analysis, through granted, it's my subjective assessment (I invite others to access this source at [1]). Frankly, I read this entire chapter (less than one page, I think) twice, and I still have no idea what the author is saying much, nor can I even think of a single sentence we could add to our article using it as a reference (but again, I'd be happy to see if someone else could use it to expand this somewhow!). As far as I can see from sources I was able to access, this is the best, and I just don't think this is sufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.