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 merge to The Witcher universe#Characters. Consensus seems to be to merge...but nobody specifies where to. "The book series" is what's suggested, but there is no page for the book series indpendent from the main article. There is, however, The Witcher universe#Characters, which seems to be the logical place for a merge, so I have closed it as such. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yennefer of Vengerberg

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional character; WP:GNG CyanGardevoir 10:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We had an AfD about this before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yennefer. This is not flagged up above, presumably due to the change of title. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The related article, Starsza Mowa, is also nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starsza Mowa. People who have an opinion on this may also have an opinion on that, and vice-versa. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems that this a major book series in some countries even if it has not made a big splash in English translation. There is a film, TV series, comics and a video game. This article is apparently about one of the main characters, one of two characters which have articles. This is consistent with the way we cover fiction in general where main characters get individual articles. We should not let the fact that this is not a big hit in English language culture put us off covering it. The reason I am suggesting keep only weakly is that the article is not great. It needs better referencing and more complete coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument only states we should keep this because we keep other characters - how about WP:OTHERSTUFF? CyanGardevoir 06:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that we have a established general practice that major fictional franchises can have individual articles for their main but not their minor characters. My point was not that some other articles like this have flown under the radar but that articles of this type are well recognised within the normal structure of Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a brush off for people who just try to justify crap by saying that other crap also exists. My point is that this is a valid subject, not a crappy one (although the article itself might be poor).

I doubt that anybody actually disagrees with this point, as a general principle. Surely you do not intend to nominate, say, Buffy Summers, James T. Kirk, Harry Potter (character) or Sherlock Holmes for deletion?

The real issues here are:

Whether or not this is a major enough franchise for the same rules to apply. As I already explained above, these are successful books with movie, TV, comic and video game spin-offs so it certainly seem to be.
Whether this is a major enough character within the franchise. This has also already been covered.

I don't think we would even be having a discussion about this if this was an English language phenomenon. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All those articles you just said meet WP:N and WP:GNG - they have enough sources and thus have gained notability. This does not. For me, that is the main issue - it may be the least important character in the world and yet have enough sources to justify notability. CyanGardevoir 05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ I've added a couple more ((find sources)) templates up above that result in more representative hits. As one of the main characters of the franchise this topic receives substantial coverage within sources discussing the book series, film, TV series, comics, and video games—there are actually at least two of those—and WP:N states that significant coverage is "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", which IMO describes the coverage of this topic. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still a short article. Why can't we merge it to "The_Witcher_universe#Yennefer_of_Vengerberg", which already exists? Please explain. CyanGardevoir 06:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSHORT is an invalid argument for deletion. If you think it should be merged, you should request that this AfD be closed and work on one of the merge procedures. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a character list until we have enough to demonstrate independent notability. This may be a bit of a systemic bias issue, since the source material doesn't seem to be primarily in English. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the Google News searches above, though, or for example the sources and external links used in the various Witcher articles in the nav bar? Many of them prominently mention Yennefer - if this were a real person mentioned in this many places comprising international coverage over more than a decade, it seems like this would be an unquestionably notable topic. And for example, it would be notability-establishing evidence for an actress to have played this role in the film or television series. (In fact, Grażyna Wolszczak who played the role in the film has an article, though with contested notability that doesn't seem to have been examined yet.) And, as DanielRigal points out, keeping this article would be consistent with how we treat the major characters of other notable media franchises. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb article merely states that she plays Yennefer. It does not demonstrate just how the subject of this article is notable. Sources need to be provided for stand-alone character notability. Just because "other" franchises have main character pages does not mean this one needs one (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Oh, and this isn't a real person, don't understand how this is a valid point for discussion... CyanGardevoir 06:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the AfD process sources don't need to be provided to anyone in particular or be placed in the article in question, it's sufficient that they exist. An AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, it's a request to other editors to investigate and evaluate an article and its topic in the context of a deletion argument.
You have nominated this article for deletion based upon lack of notability but the coverage in so many sources that describe the book series, film, TV series, comics, and video games establishes notability as it would for the topic of a real person with equivalent coverage - you can't just say that the coverage in reliable independent sources "doesn't count" because this topic is a fictional character instead of a real person.
If you want to concede that the coverage that exists does away with notability concerns and make some separate argument that Wikipedia does not "need" an article about this topic even though it satisfies notability requirement you must do so formally with explicit reasoning. It's not impossible but it's very difficult to make such an argument objectively in appeal to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tow talk 22:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the book series as the sensible compromise solution. There's no need to delete the material, and a redirect is appropriate. TOOSHORT is not an argument for deletion, but it can be an argument for merging. A merge can come here to be resolved, because the decisions here have a certain degree of stability, and it is at any case logical to consider all the possibilities together. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. As long as the article remains underdeveloped, independent of the character's notability, there simply is no need at the moment for a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a compromise. Not enough sources to WP:verify notability and meet the standard set out in the WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2012 (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.