 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 14. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Consensus is that the fictional character is not notable enough. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's arguments are discounted for being boilerplate and at odds with established policy. If he wants to create an article about the unrelated historical person Bernardo Buscayno, he should do so under that title. Sandstein 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commander Dante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability. No out-of-universe content, too detailed to merge. Pagrashtak 04:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as I suggest when I removed t he prod--seems the obvious way to handle articles like this. A merge does not necessarily mean keeping all the content, though it should mean keeping a substantial part. I am reluctant with articles in this field to assume knowledge I don';t really have and perform the merge myself and decide what content to keep.DGG (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to where? The logical choice, Blood Angels, was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)). The character may have warranted a mention in the chapter article, but this is too detailed for the general Space Marine article, which already suffers from too much in-universe information and a lack of secondary sources. Pagrashtak 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- several alternatives were mentioned in that afd discussion. DGG (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one suggesting the merge. I've already stated my position on merge targets, it would be nice if you could do the same. Where exactly would you have this merged? Pagrashtak 13:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- several alternatives were mentioned in that afd discussion. DGG (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and delete. No references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Review, 2. Apparently in other media, 3 Independent character review, 4. Another review (is this a good site?) 5. Review of him in other media, I just typed in "Commander Dante" and review into yahoo and this is what I found from a quick search. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Trivial mention ". The Games Workshop sculptors have done a tremendous job on the special characters and heroes,. . . the magnificent gold Commander Dante . . ." and that's it about Dante., 2. Not independent of Games Workshop or licensed sellers (i.e. it's a card in a WH40k CCG), 3. What review? This is the description of the special character model which is identical to the official description on the Games Workshop website (i.e. the text used to advertise the model), 4. Trivial mention, "There is nothing like sitting back and smugly admiring the Commander Dante model you have spent the last 7 hours perfecting." That's all you get about Dante, 5. Not independent of Games Workshop. This is the official Games Workshop Blood Angels codex that describes Dante and what his game stats are, i.e. more repetition of official advertising material from the company that makes the figures. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Third party spec guidelines found in 2 for the card and 3 for a miniature are part of Notability guidelines. And yes, all of them are independent from Games Workshop since Games Workshop does not own any of them. These references should be enough to justify the restoration of the previous page and merging this miniature into it. Plus, my search was only limited, so there are plenty more. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean here... The collectible card game, from which this card you mention is taken, is produced by Sabertooth Games, a subsidiary of Games Workshop, and hence isn't somehow a "third party reference". The third reference is nothing more than repetition of advertising material from Games Workshop. What "review" are you referring to here? As I've stated, the others are more advertising from Games Workshop or the barest of (trivial) mentions about this miniature that represents the character and don't substantiate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Third party spec guidelines found in 2 for the card and 3 for a miniature are part of Notability guidelines. And yes, all of them are independent from Games Workshop since Games Workshop does not own any of them. These references should be enough to justify the restoration of the previous page and merging this miniature into it. Plus, my search was only limited, so there are plenty more. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Trivial mention ". The Games Workshop sculptors have done a tremendous job on the special characters and heroes,. . . the magnificent gold Commander Dante . . ." and that's it about Dante., 2. Not independent of Games Workshop or licensed sellers (i.e. it's a card in a WH40k CCG), 3. What review? This is the description of the special character model which is identical to the official description on the Games Workshop website (i.e. the text used to advertise the model), 4. Trivial mention, "There is nothing like sitting back and smugly admiring the Commander Dante model you have spent the last 7 hours perfecting." That's all you get about Dante, 5. Not independent of Games Workshop. This is the official Games Workshop Blood Angels codex that describes Dante and what his game stats are, i.e. more repetition of official advertising material from the company that makes the figures. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Restore previous group that was deleted, merge this individual into that group, add third party product information found above. It appears this character appears in multiple gaming books as a main character, games in multiple media, and a few comic books and novels that also appeared in my search. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC) HEre are seven more third party links to the group that this could merge into, to provide enough joint verifiability for one page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Less notable than blood angels, if that is possible. Creation of a redirect or a bold merge are editorial considerations, not for AfD. independent sources do not cover the subject in detail (product reviews don't really count). It fails WP:GNG, delete it. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- since there is the possibility of a merge/redirect, that should be the close, not delete. Merge/redirect are versions of keep, per deletion policy.. DGG (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I talked about this at the deletion policy discussion (the one about making enforced mergers a deletion outcome and speedy closing afds with merge possibilities), but I don't really care if this article is merged or redirected. That decision can and should be made by someone with an interest in the article. In my mind, this AfD is an up/down decision. We can close AfD's to merge or redirect but I would rather not do so, because we get into the habit of preemptively protecting redirect pages when we do that. I don't think that is good policy (it works as a case by case compromise) to do so. So, we should delete this article. If someone goes right now and redirects this to the 40K article, I wouldn't be unhappy. But I don't see a reason to implore the closing admin to do so (of course, if others want to do so, they are free to). Protonk (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the problems with the merge-without-prejudice is that it is trivially easy to revert such a merge. That's what led to several related AfDs in the first place, because the articles wouldn't stay dead (so to speak) - this would be fine if the content in question were salvageable, but none of these articles consists of more than 5-10% of material which isn't gameguide or in-universe. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I talked about this at the deletion policy discussion (the one about making enforced mergers a deletion outcome and speedy closing afds with merge possibilities), but I don't really care if this article is merged or redirected. That decision can and should be made by someone with an interest in the article. In my mind, this AfD is an up/down decision. We can close AfD's to merge or redirect but I would rather not do so, because we get into the habit of preemptively protecting redirect pages when we do that. I don't think that is good policy (it works as a case by case compromise) to do so. So, we should delete this article. If someone goes right now and redirects this to the 40K article, I wouldn't be unhappy. But I don't see a reason to implore the closing admin to do so (of course, if others want to do so, they are free to). Protonk (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- since there is the possibility of a merge/redirect, that should be the close, not delete. Merge/redirect are versions of keep, per deletion policy.. DGG (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only is notability not inherited, the logic in which things even less notable than the originally-deleted parent can be used to jump-start its resurrection is evidently backwards. What makes articles notable is not how deep and detailed their fictional hierarchy is: it's whether the subject is covered in a non-trivial manner by reliable third-party sources. Commander Dante is a major figure in the Blood Angels Space Marine Chapter, but as neither he nor the Blood Angels are covered in any non-trivial detail by significant third party sources there's no point in having articles for them. Greater than 95% of all documentation on either subject is written from an in-universe or game-guide perspective and the out-of-universe stuff can easily be subsumed into the master Space Marines article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In addition the fictional character, there appears to be a real-world Commander Dante as well. See here. Also, notability is inherited. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be necessary to point this out to people familiar with the argument, but the existence of a figure of some potential historic notability with the same name is not a reason to keep an article (or indeed the edit history of an article) devoted entirely to an entirely different subject (the in-universe biography of a toy soldier). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows me that the article shouldn't be redlinked and that editors should not be prevented from overwriting the current article or moving the current article to a Commander Dante (Space Marines) article instead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A complete red herring. Moving the page to another title will not fix the problems with this article. Pagrashtak 02:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to consider all options as deletion is an extreme last resort and doesn't seem the way to go here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A rose by any other name would be as notable. Pagrashtak 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to consider all options as deletion is an extreme last resort and doesn't seem the way to go here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A complete red herring. Moving the page to another title will not fix the problems with this article. Pagrashtak 02:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows me that the article shouldn't be redlinked and that editors should not be prevented from overwriting the current article or moving the current article to a Commander Dante (Space Marines) article instead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be necessary to point this out to people familiar with the argument, but the existence of a figure of some potential historic notability with the same name is not a reason to keep an article (or indeed the edit history of an article) devoted entirely to an entirely different subject (the in-universe biography of a toy soldier). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above reliable sources have been used to assert notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All are either trivial mentions that do not justify a whole wikipedia article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are good enough for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All are either trivial mentions that do not justify a whole wikipedia article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section break
editAs with Arathi, I am beginning to incorporate information about the historical figure into the article. Anyone is welcome to help as oodles of references exist here and we have two articles that also mention this guy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the notability of either Commander Dante (I haven't really researched either at this point) I find it slightly odd to start incorporating information about a completely different person into this article. I would personally suggest creating a separate article on the historical Commander Dante at a different, disambiguated title so that the two can be evaluated separately. Having an article of some kind here seems like a good idea, but if, as you suggest, both of them are worthy of inclusion then it's just going to be confusing to have the info combined in one article - create separate ones and disambiguate with hatnotes. ~ mazca t | c 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I indicate below, Commander Dante should be a disambugation page to two all new articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability from reliable sources independent of the topic. That there exists a real-life Commander Dante is a complete red herring. sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 2
editFollowing the success of this precedent, I have continued revising the article to cover the real world historical figure. This way, if anyone wants to merge the Warhammer stuff to an article on Commander Dante (Warhammer) it's readily available in the edit history and if anyone wishes to start an article on Bernardo Buscayno, they now have the basis in reliable sources to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:48, 14 August 2008 (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.