Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shojun the Warlord

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. No prejudice towards being recreated as a redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shojun the Warlord

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

A contested WP:BLAR. I cannot find any notability outside of the Judge Dredd universe, but I am far from a comic book expert. As far as I can tell, this is a minor character that only appears every so often. To me, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, and WP:PLOT seem to apply. That being said, it would be a handy redirect to List_of_minor_characters_in_Judge_Dredd#Shojun_the_Warlord. menaechmi (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. No real-world notability (and he doesn't even appear "every so often", he appeared in six issues in 1986 and that was it), plot only, and has a paragraph in the "minor characters" article. Not notable, not necessary, not encyclopedic. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting or expressing a view either way, but as a point of fact the only reason the character has an entry in the "list of minor characters" article is because this article had recently been redirected to "Judge Dredd", and so a condensed version of it was added to the list. It shouldn't be cited as a reason to delete or redirect. Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support keep. Character was the catalyst for major impact on Dredd universe and long term story treads, forcing the Chef to resign leading to a new Chief, who causes major errors over a number of years causing the old Chief to return new demented. Using no real world notability as an argument to delete is mute reason as 98% of the comic characters with pages on Wikipedia have no real world notability for example, the guy who shot batman's parents or uncle Joe have no importance to the comic world other than plot points and only appear once when the series is being rebooted so frequency is also no argument for deletion in this case. 86.167.83.232 (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand what "real-world notability" means. Impact on the Judge Dredd universe (which in any case is pretty minor) is irrelevant. Is Shojun the Warlord, as a character, known to anybody in the real world beyond Judge Dredd obsessives? Does he have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? The answer to that is clearly no. He's a plot point from thirty years ago.

The Judge Dredd comic series itself has real-world notability. Its publishing history and significant plot points should have (proportionate) coverage, and Shojun the Warlord's attack on Mega-City One and the resulting resignation of Chief Judge McGruder would merit some place there. But this is fancruft. Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a place to summarise plots. If this were a Judge Dredd fan wiki, an article like this would be perfectly fine - but not in an encyclopedia. The existence of other articles that fail real world notability does not justify this one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No is you does not know what is notable and what isn't, this page has plenty of notability (just claiming he has not appeared in thirty years is no excuse on notability). All the Judge Dredd wikipedia page are very frequently used by people (just check youtube) to research the subject not just the Dredd obsessive as you call them and just saying its un encyclopaedic is non argument just used by people with no real arguments to fight with. My support for this page stands.86.167.83.232 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of real-world notability. I wouldn't oppose merging if a suitable target can be identified. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no strong indication of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2017 (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.