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 Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series); I have redirected the article. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited information. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie-Su

Julie-Su (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page concerns a fictional character that is not notable, because it has not received any nontrivial coverage. In other words, there are no reliable sources that have this character as their primary subject. This nomination is not a blanket nomination on purpose. User:Krator (t c) 12:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am arguing that there are no reliable sources covering this subject. I did search and found none. Note that the sources currently on there are not reliable and do not provide for any notability. User:Krator (t c) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Independent, third-party means you'll need a source that is not anything published by Sega or Archie. I claim in my nomination that such sources do not exist for this character. User:Krator (t c) 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that is what his restrictions specifically said. Read over the facts, next time, kid. Oh, and while I'm here, Keep to find sources, and if nothing sufficient can be found, MERGE. (Goes back on Wikibreak) -ZeroGiga (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a new ref using discussions and intend to do the same thing to help the article, so does that mean your vote is keep? Oh and could you stop calling me kid please, it's really annoying.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep as it's worth considering that if you don't keep this one, you might as well delete every page that is related to the characters created by Archie, as none have any reliable sources. It's a comic, you can't expect reliable sources if 'pictures aren't sources'. Pictures are what comics are all about. Maybe Spiderman or Batman can have reliable sources, but only because of all the different media they're in. If it were different, and neither Spiderman nor Batman were anything more than comic book characters, it'd be the same situation with them because the only official sources were pictures. Also, since the only official way of knowing, for example, that Locke died, was in a picture, a non-source, we might as well call it false info, eh? When you look at it that way, calling pictures invalid as sources starts to seem contradictory to the point of having articles on comics and their characters, doesn't it? After all, you're not really going to find official info on a comic character other than in a picture, are you? Right, I'll end this long post, if that's what it's called here, before I start rambling. Just wanted to point out that they are comics after all. It's obviously going to be hard finding reliable 'real sources' if you don't accept pictures.--FTEPoSI (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the problem... Bridies (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote: "you might as well delete every page that is related to the characters created by Archie, as none have any reliable sources". That seems like a good plan. However, rashness and blanket nominations have let to idiocy in the past, so let's consider this article alone for now. User:Krator (t c) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting doing it. I was pointing out that your grounds for nominating this article for deletion could be applied to all the other articles for Archie-created characters, as they all share the same sources, and therefore the same problem. Although, I guess it did seem a little ambiguous.--FTEPoSI (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting doing it, and I agree that my grounds for nominating this article for deletion should be applied to all the other articles that fit the same profile. I just think it should be a slow process, not a blanket nomination of 200 articles, as there may be some exceptions we fail to see. User:Krator (t c) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, I was asked by a fellow user to take a look at this AFD and leave my comments, and my opinion is neutral, pending opinion conditional. Anyway, most of this article appears to be a mass violation of WP:PLOT, similar to Super transformation (other media) (which is being kept for the moment solely for the purpose of deciding what to do with it due to mergers into Chaos Emeralds.) It is discussed primarily in-universe and doesn't have too many sources. Now, that being said, there's no reason why this article couldn't be cleaned up, pending the location of reliable sources. And just because they're not there now doesn't mean they don't exist at all. In my experience, most reliable sources for fictional characters are buried in a pile of fancruft among all the sites in the internet. This usually means it takes time to fix. As for the merge suggestion, I would recommend it provided that a decent article can be made from this info along with other info. There isn't a list of these characters, is there? I believe Krator's suggestion of deleting every Archie character is a bit beyond what we should be focusing on, but at least he is right in not doing a blanket nomination, and I do agree with him there. If someone volunteers to work extensively on this article (or does so), I will say Keep. If not, I would merge any current useful info provided that some place for the info is available or can be created. If not this, then delete. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose FairfieldFencer and I could try, but as you said, the useful info is likely buried under piles of fancruft. Still, I find that it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia - to have information available on everything - to delete articles just because no "notable" information can be found. To resurrect an earlier point, you wouldn't dare delete the article on Gwen Stacy, would you?!? She's about as "notable" as Julie-Su at this point. Ironically, this article itself is probably the best place to find reliable information on Julie-Su. --Luigifan (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it seems it is important, though it is hard to tell through the excessively dense writing. These articles need rewriting and cleanup, almost all of them. If the effort towards deletion and defense had gone to that, we'd be much further along. DGG (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that it is impossible to clean them up because there are no third party sources available. If you think the articke is important and can be cleaned up, please demonstrate how.Bridies (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed a comment being added and removed, so perhaps some qualification. The fact that the sources are pictures has nothing to do with their use to establish notability. The only thing that matters for that is their being "reliable, independent, third-party". As they are not independent or third-party, they cannot be used to establish notability. Again, not because they are pictures. They can, too, be used as references only in the article itself when notability is established by other sources per WP:SELFPUB. User:Krator (t c) 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per above - there's no real-world coverage or other assertions of notability, so the topic doesn't deserve its own article. If merged, it needs editing down heavily per WP:WAF, as there's no real-world information to balance the in-universe information. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable fictional character with real-world interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or fail that merge and redirect. No real-world content or assertion of significance. Eusebeus (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The character is popular even among people who dislike the Archie series. --Luigifan (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sign of independent coverage. Notability requires independent publications, which I just don't see. It's possible they could exist, but faith isn't a substitute for proof. Graevemoore (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - after all this discussion above, not one keep-voter has added even one external third-party reliable source to the article, or even mentioned it above? Do we all get to ignore WP:RS now? Did WP:CRUFT get deleted in the last month? Has someone been editing WP:NOT behind our backs? I would love to see one independent third-party source, some sort of book on the topic, that says at least something about Julie-Su. Then you can bootstrap in all the in-universe info you want. But I'd first like to see some third-party assertion of this character's notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRUFT is just an essay and that word is not helpful. Also, the article gets thousands of hits a month. One thing that's important is that we don't just rule out the possibility of sources existing if there's difficulty finding them online. Many reliable magazines do not have full online articles. There are a number of times that I have added references from video game and other magazines to articles on Wikipedia that would not be found on a simple Google search, but that do in effect demonstrate sufficient out of universe coverage. A key is Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and what I see above is members of the relevant wiki project actively searching for sources and given that we do indeed know the character is not a hoax and is somewhat of a main character in its franchise, then it's not unreasonable to believe that some magazine without an online archive would have adequate sources to improve the article. And I see no reason why on something with a deadline anyone should be pressured to produce such sources for a non-hoax article with enough Google hits to suggest at least popularity during a five-day AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails to satisfy WP:PLOT, WP:V, and WP:N. At a stretch, trim down to a sourced paragraph or two and merge. Jakew (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to say that there are currently 8 keeps, 8 deletes and 7 merges.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are you defineing reliable in this case?Geni 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd taking guidance from WP:RS, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Though the issue with the current sources is independence. Graevemoore (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2]and from the author[3].Geni 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell much about link #1, as most of the pages seem to be 404s. I wouldn't call it reliable. #2 just seems to be some issue directory for an episode that mentions the name of the character in question. I wouldn't call that substantial coverage of her. #3 doesn't seem to contain substantial mention, either. Even so, the artist commissioned to draw the character isn't independent, anyway. Graevemoore (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 and #3 are neither reliable nor independant. I don't get what #2 is supposed to demonstrate. Bridies (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is 1 not independant?Geni 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. #1 is independant but not (as I see it) reliable. #3 isn't independant.Bridies (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 is not reliable, 2 is trivial (WP:N requires nontrivial sources explicitly), and 3 is not independent. User:Krator (t c) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discussion, not a vote. Bridies (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a raildroading based on pedandtry is what it is, just like most afds.68.81.95.231 (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you. Most users they just take one search through the internet find nothing and decide I'll delete it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do feel free to actually back up that statement. Bridies (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the Archie Comics Sonic universe has literally THOUSANDS of characters, this one is one of the few notable ones if not solely for stories involving the Knuckles character, who is very major in the Sonic series altogether. I haven't yet looked at the article, but I'm sure it's possible to make it out of universe. Also, I fail to see the justification of putting a major plot character in an article about minor characters. Doing such a thing would be contradictory to the article.GrandMasterGalvatron (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the comics books Sonic the Hedgehog and Knuckles the Echidna are reliable sources. There's no reason you couldn't write a neutral, verifiable article with no original research about this character. Julie-Su is notable as a fictional character for being the girlfriend of Knuckles the Echinda and Wikipedia is not paper. --Pixelface (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot of assertion of notability here, but I'm still failing to see any evidence that applies directly to WP:NOTE. What is it about this character that meets the criterion there? Where is the significant independent coverage? Graevemoore (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTE is just a suggestion. Just because an article doesn't contain significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, that doesn't mean the topic is not notable. Look at most articles in Category:Mountain ranges for example. --Pixelface (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is a guideline. And guidelines should generally be followed. Guideline doesn't mean "Feel free to ignore" for whatever reason. And I see no reason why Wikipedia's real-world coverage suffers as a loss of this article. If you feel that there are a lot of mountain ranges that aren't notable, I encourage you to WP:SOFIXIT and nominate them for deletion. Graevemoore (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just noticed I haven't 'voted' yet. The character fails WP:N. There is no substantial coverage in reliable, independant sources. As Graevemoore points out, no one has actually countered this problem.Bridies (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah he said that, but hadn't actually done it. It needs to be multiple, reliable, independant sources in any case.Bridies (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, didn't see the afd was closed, sorry for modifying it.Bridies (talk) 09:35, 18 May 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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julie-Su
No tags for this post.