Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tika Waylan

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 List of Dragonlance characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tika Waylan

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

This article fails to establish notability. The two "reception" sources are fluff that take trivial quotes and puff them up as if they are important. They're nothing more than passing mentions in articles about the series and don't even deserve attention in the article. TTN (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I disagree with the nominator on the validity and usefulness of the sources, and I believe they help the article meet WP:N. Failing that, and without the discovery of more and better sources, the most severe outcome I can envision here is a merge to List of Dragonlance characters. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Dragonlance characters. Not notable enough for individual article, which is poorly sourced. No viable third-party sources on the character were found, so this hardly qualifies for WP:GNG unless I'm missing something. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would be the IO9 and AV Club references, references 3 and 4 as of the current version, clearly labeled in the reception section. Was that what you were missing? Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware of those, yes, but just two sources do not notability make. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but "multiple" includes "two" in English. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Weak merge. Two reliable sources about the character and I'd agree that the GNG is met. But two articles about broader topics in which the character is mentioned is not sufficient. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- WP:GNG Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's about weight and scope. Those sources are trivial passing mentions with no larger context than describing the scenario of the story. It's like making an article on a random movie character based off of two reviews that each mention the character one time. That's not how things work. The easiest way to look at it is that these sources wouldn't even be used if this article had an abundance of third party sources to establish notability. These two are just being puffed up under the pretense of being important because apparently nobody actually wants to work on the few dozen D&D fiction articles that could actually be easily improved. 21:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    - Jclemens, I agree with that two sources would be sufficient (as you say, two is multiple) if these sources covered the character at any length. The full extent of the sources' coverage, as far as I can see, is this:
      A V Club: "Charismatic characters abound. The barmaid-turned-swordswoman Tika—whose no-nonsense fierceness and agency, not to mention her job as a waitress, reminded me of my mom when I was a kid—gets a compelling story arc. It isn’t exactly as evolved in terms of feminism as it could be, but is still miles ahead of many popular fantasy novels of the era. And Tasslehoff Burrfoot, the group’s...."
      
      io9: "And they're joined the Plainsfolk Riverwind and Goldmoon, so-called "barbarians" in a strange land, the spoiled elven princess Laurana, and Tika, a barmaid who has been swept up in the action. ... And they aren't token female characters, not mere metaphors for the appeal of easy evil versus hard-won good. We meet plenty of interesting women along the way: the prideful Alhana Starbreeze, the tragic Silvara, and Tika, who in times of peace is more hearth mother than warrior, but when pressed in action will pick up a knife (or a frying pan) to defend herself and her friends). The women of Krynn are much like the men—no better and no worse. (Although some of them did tend to be a bit less dressed than their male counterparts in the artwork.)"
    - This is great for discussions of the character in a list (either freestanding or attached to the article on the novel series) but I'm not convinced that they meet the hazy "significance" bar in the case of the GNG. That said, there is some coverage, and what's there is good, so I'll change my vote to a weak merge. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per J Milburn. The sources are great, but I agree with J Milburn in that information can be attached to a discussion of the character in some sort of list rather than an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - J Milburn showed pretty clearly that the sources being found for this character are not substantial enough to support an article, being, in the end, trivial one or two sentence mentions in larger articles. Enough to support a merge, but not a separate article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2016 (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.