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. No consensus to delete. A decision whether to merge or not can be made editorially on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 00:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Garmadon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first glance, yeah the article looks quote good, but its sources at reception relies mostly on Movie web? and their sources are only a passing mentions from film reviews? The sources that were brought on previous afd discussion were also passing mentions, except this [1], but looks trivial. Meanwhile, in the influence section, it was sourced by weird source like Brick Fanatics and Block Fanatics except collider; thou they only discussed about its design but not as a character so this doesn't count as sigcov. BEFORE shows nothing but film reviews. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Without commenting on whether or not he is notable, the article appears to clearly fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as all the reception is either unreliable or based on a primary source. If that is removed as it likely should be, there is no clear significance to the character that has been established. I am open to changing my view to keep if the article is cleaned up and reliable, significant coverage is shown. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the sourcing exists, this is the protagonist of a fifteen-season television series that began in 2011 and an animated featured film, but heavily rewrite, copyedit, like this article is awfully written, yikes. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A heavy rewrite would need third party reliable sources though. Do we have that? Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Most of the reception seems to be on the relationship between father and son in Lloyd and Garmadon, but the sourcing exists. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling stone and Paste are the only reliable here, but they are all trivial. "The leader of the team is the creatively named Green Ninja, who is actually teenager Lloyd Garmadon, son of Lord Garmadon". "Green Ninja is beloved. But, twist! Everyone in the city knows that Lloyd is Garmadon’s kid" so AwEsomE. I don't think that's a WP:SIGCOV. And, most of the sources were from films + Lloyd were just passing mentions. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more from a Google. [11] [12] [13] I am sure there are more, given just how many years Ninjago has been going, so I think WP:ARTN applies. Does this article suck? Yes. Is there enough sourcing to warrant a rewrite? I say yes. There should be more refs included on the merch too, not just the reception. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the sources were just about the actor's role in the films. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per @Zxcvbnm. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 91.219.238.98. Blubewwy (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with Zxcvbnm that the sourcing just isn't there. All of the sources that have been linked either consist of passing coverage or don't seem like RSes. ― novov (t c) 06:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a lack of better words, this article is pretty terribly written but secondary covering does exist as demonstrated by 91.219.238.98 and I'll probably do my own dive into sources when I have more time to do so. I will also add that most of the sources brought up don't seem to have an established consensus on their reliability. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't look "terribly written" (The author could be offended by this). It's actually quite good, but the thing is the sources, which I disagree with. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:57, 5 April 2024 (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.