Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opal Koboi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 October 12. 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Opal Koboi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article consistes entirely of plot summary and original research. It completely fails NOT#PLOT and WAF. It fails to establish notability of its subject because it has no references of any kind, thus verifiability cannot be established either. Reliable secondary sources would be required to justify a stand-alone article for this character, and none appear to be available. The plot summary is already present in the individual articles about the books and is merely re-presented here under the guise of "Fictional character history". For original research, see in particular the second paragraph under "Artemis Fowl: The Opal Deception". IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Main antagonist of bestselling book series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which does not de facto or in an and of itself warrant an encyclopedia article. There are no references in the article to establish notability. Your argument does not address any of the concerns raised in the nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try a google search then. I'm not sure where you're looking, but I see a number of News articles and at least one Book discussing this character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind providing some links to those that you feel are good sources? I've just looked through 10 pages of google hits and only found fan forums, wikis, fan fiction sites, social networking sites, etc...nothing that would remotely qualify as a reliable secondary source. If the book you are referring to is Artemis Fowl: The Opal Deception, that is actually the fourth book in the Artemis Fowl series from which the character originates, not an independent book discussing the character. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book I'm referring to is Fantasy Fiction, by Frances Sinclair, ISBN 1903446465. You must be using a computer that blocks Google News for some reason, because This Toronto Sun article is the very first thing that comes up for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be. I'm editing from work so I'm not sure if it blocks GN hits. The first hit I get is the Wikipedia article, followed by some fan art commmunities and fansites. A separate search under Google News got me only 1 hit [1] which appears to be a review of the book (it's not in English, so I'm not certain). The Toronto Sun article requires registration to view...could you maybe provide some quotes or something from it that would help establish notability for this character? On the face it looks like a review of the book as a whole, so I doubt it'd demonstrate independent notability for the character apart from the book itself, but I'll leave it to you. Sinclair's book Riveting Reads Plus Fantasy Fiction only gives a 1-paragraph plot overview of the entire series. Its only mention of the character is "In the fourth book Artemis Fowl and the Opal Deception evil Opal Koboi captures Holly and Artemis and leaves them to die in a troll-infested amusement park." (p. 36). Clearly this doesn't discuss the character in any manner of detail and doesn't demonstrate independent notability, even by the widest interpretation of "significant coverage" as called for by the general notability guideline. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, it's a little-discussed problem with Google that people in one part of the world will see results that simply don't appear to people in other parts of the world. I experienced this myself at AFD some years ago. On the other hand, it does appear that you've forgotten to de-restrict the search so that it covers all dates, not just this month. ☺
It's the Toronto Star, not the Toronto Sun, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops :P Well, a de-restricted search doesn't turn up anything that gives the character more than a passing or trivial mention either; mainly reviews of the book as a whole. Of course I'm still open to anyone presenting a secondary source the gives significant coverage to this specific character, which would help prove notability, but after multiple searches coming up dry I doubt that such sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, it's a little-discussed problem with Google that people in one part of the world will see results that simply don't appear to people in other parts of the world. I experienced this myself at AFD some years ago. On the other hand, it does appear that you've forgotten to de-restrict the search so that it covers all dates, not just this month. ☺
- That might be. I'm editing from work so I'm not sure if it blocks GN hits. The first hit I get is the Wikipedia article, followed by some fan art commmunities and fansites. A separate search under Google News got me only 1 hit [1] which appears to be a review of the book (it's not in English, so I'm not certain). The Toronto Sun article requires registration to view...could you maybe provide some quotes or something from it that would help establish notability for this character? On the face it looks like a review of the book as a whole, so I doubt it'd demonstrate independent notability for the character apart from the book itself, but I'll leave it to you. Sinclair's book Riveting Reads Plus Fantasy Fiction only gives a 1-paragraph plot overview of the entire series. Its only mention of the character is "In the fourth book Artemis Fowl and the Opal Deception evil Opal Koboi captures Holly and Artemis and leaves them to die in a troll-infested amusement park." (p. 36). Clearly this doesn't discuss the character in any manner of detail and doesn't demonstrate independent notability, even by the widest interpretation of "significant coverage" as called for by the general notability guideline. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The book I'm referring to is Fantasy Fiction, by Frances Sinclair, ISBN 1903446465. You must be using a computer that blocks Google News for some reason, because This Toronto Sun article is the very first thing that comes up for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind providing some links to those that you feel are good sources? I've just looked through 10 pages of google hits and only found fan forums, wikis, fan fiction sites, social networking sites, etc...nothing that would remotely qualify as a reliable secondary source. If the book you are referring to is Artemis Fowl: The Opal Deception, that is actually the fourth book in the Artemis Fowl series from which the character originates, not an independent book discussing the character. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try a google search then. I'm not sure where you're looking, but I see a number of News articles and at least one Book discussing this character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which does not de facto or in an and of itself warrant an encyclopedia article. There are no references in the article to establish notability. Your argument does not address any of the concerns raised in the nomination. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Main antagonist of a well-known and bestselling bookseries. If we delete Opal Koboi, we might as well delete Lord Voldemort. Why do we have to delete an article with a few problems instead of trying to work out those problems. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from the comments above, a primary problem is WP:V because there do not appear to be any secondary sources available to support this article. We cannot fix a lack of sources if no sources even exist. Lord Voldemort, on the other hand, is very well sourced including numerous reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage to the character. That's simply not the case with this article. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a convincing argument at all in this case. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some things, thankfully. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas no reliable sources giving significant coverage seem to be available - unless the Toronto Star article proves to be significant. Anyone got access to that? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Change to redirect to Artemis Fowl series per Hiding below. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands. In the time this article has been discussed, I've rewritten Cissie and Ada to comply with policy and rescue from deletion. If the sources exist, fix the article. (no objection to a redirect to Artemis Fowl series as redirects are free. But my main point stands. Fix the problems.) Hiding T 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a delete and redirect too, similar to this closure. The character name is a potential search term, and would be appropriate to exist as a redirect to the series article, but the content as it stands should be deleted to avoid a revert re-creation. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of what Illazilla says himself--since he could fix the other articles, this one is fixable too. I do not try to delete everything i would like to work on that I do not finish. DGG (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anything to that effect. Could you please point to where? I've explicitly said that I can't fix the article because I can't find any sources. I think you have me confused with Hiding. In either case, the ability to "fix" other articles does not mean that this one can be fixed as well, as demonstrated by our inability to find any reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't hold up when no sources can be found. (It doesn't hold up ever, really) --IllaZilla (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments are at Andrew Lenahan, but mostly born of frustration. Let's just improve these articles if we can rather than have the debate. Hiding T 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anything to that effect. Could you please point to where? I've explicitly said that I can't fix the article because I can't find any sources. I think you have me confused with Hiding. In either case, the ability to "fix" other articles does not mean that this one can be fixed as well, as demonstrated by our inability to find any reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't hold up when no sources can be found. (It doesn't hold up ever, really) --IllaZilla (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Starblind. The Toronto Star article makes an explicit mention of the character. Google-searching for sources on characters is difficult because there are so many unreliable fansites, so finding a reliable source this early is a good start. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither redirection nor deletion are exceptable. The fact that people will probably type her name into the search engine, proves that she is notable. All the article needs is a bit of sourcing a few citations here and there. The text needs to be trimmed a bit too. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point here. There don't appear to be any reliable sources available. Both Starblind and I have conducted searches, and the only possible source that has come up is the Toronto Star article. We have no idea what that article even says about the character; since it's a pay-per-view website we can't read more than the opening sentence. On the basis of that opening sentence it appears that the article is a review of the book as a whole, not a source specifically discussing this individual character. The fact that it came up in a search for "Opal Koboi" only indicates that the character's name appears somewhere in the article, not that there is any significant coverage from which to source the Wikipedia article about the character. In fact, it appears that the reason it comes up as a hit is because the article has a quote from the book which contains the character's name. It could very well be the same kind of coverage as the Riveting Reads Plus Fantasy Fiction source discussed above, which only mentions the character in passing in a single sentence synopsis. Bottom line: a source that we can't view isn't a source at all if there are no quotes or citations from it in the article. I've asked Starblind to provide some quotes from it. If he does, great. If he can't, then obviously this source gives us nothing. Thus far we have found zero reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage to this character, and one source we can't even view which has a slim possibility of providing significant coverage. We can't run off of the presumption that other sources may exist out there in the ether...that violates WP:V (and, by some extension, WP:CRYSTAL. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "The fact that people will probably type her name into the search engine, proves that she is notable" is entirely your opinion and impossible to prove. There is no objective way to show whether readers type the character's name into the search box or not. There are ways to show the number of page views, but these do not indicate how the reader arrived at the article, as there are numerous other ways to arrive at the article other than typing "Opal Koboi" in to the Wikipedia search box. As I've said, a redirect page is actually perfectly acceptable because we can assume that some people will probably do a Wikipedia search for the character, and I don't object to the page existing solely as a redirect. However the current content, which is 100% plot summary and original research, should be deleted to avoid a revert re-creation. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are cunning like that aren't you IllaZilla. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by that, or how to take it, so I'll just say let's stay civil and stick to discussing the article's problems. I am referring to a delete/redirect like this, which I've seen done before and seems to be the appropriate action here. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One extra point in addition to what IllaZilla says above: even if we did know for certain that lots of people were searching for the term, that might demonstrate 'notability' by some reasonable definitions of the word but not by Wikipedia's technical definition, which is what we need to think about here. Olaf Davis | Talk 07:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are cunning like that aren't you IllaZilla. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither redirection nor deletion are exceptable. The fact that people will probably type her name into the search engine, proves that she is notable. All the article needs is a bit of sourcing a few citations here and there. The text needs to be trimmed a bit too. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could someone provide a link to a website that doesn't require you to enter some massive, Faustian free-trial to view a simple book review? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I admit the article needs work but the character is too notable to be deleted outright. If we delete Opal Koboi we might as well delete Artemis Fowl II and Holly Short. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments again, neither of which address the actual concerns brought up in the nomination (verifiability, original research, unavailability of sources. Merely repeating the same arguments you've already made doesn't give them any added weight. In my honest opinion, if no secondary sources exist for those other articles, then they should actually be brought here for a deletion discussion (I won't bother with that right now. I pick my battles and this one was a pretty obvious candidate). Deleting the article does not mean we are deleting the character; we are not banishing any mention of these characters from Wikipedia or the face of the Earth. They can be (and are) discussed in the main articles on the series, the individual books, and character list articles. There are simply not enough (nay, any) third-party sources around which to build independent articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You pick your battles and this was an obvious candidate? Are you implying IllaZilla that you go around looking for articles to delete and pick off the fledgeling articles that won't put up a fight? Are you like some sort of predatory fish that picks off the smaller weaker fish rather going in for the big ones? Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you, are you going to go along with a man who deletes things simply for the fun of it? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the presidential debates...you don't need to make negative insinuations about my intentions or character. I came across this article rather randomly, and it struck me as having a number of problems (verifiability, notability, excessive plot summary, and original research). Since it did not appear that those problems could be fixed without removing at least 95% of the article's content, I believed deletion was a valid option. Hence this discussion. I did not even look at the other Artemis Fowl characters, and that's not particularly relevant. This discussion is about this article, on it own merits and irrespective of OTHERSTUFF. By "pick my battles" I specifically mean that I don't go around hunting for articles to delete; I only nominate those I happen to encounter that are obvious candidates because they have unsolveable problems. I also don't troll AfD !voting in every deletion discussion; I "pick my battles" by only joining those in which I feel I have a valid viewpoint to offer and can make a good argument either for or against. Drop the incivility and the personal attacks and focus on this article's problems, which you have yet to offer any solutions for. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm sorry, I overreacted. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the presidential debates...you don't need to make negative insinuations about my intentions or character. I came across this article rather randomly, and it struck me as having a number of problems (verifiability, notability, excessive plot summary, and original research). Since it did not appear that those problems could be fixed without removing at least 95% of the article's content, I believed deletion was a valid option. Hence this discussion. I did not even look at the other Artemis Fowl characters, and that's not particularly relevant. This discussion is about this article, on it own merits and irrespective of OTHERSTUFF. By "pick my battles" I specifically mean that I don't go around hunting for articles to delete; I only nominate those I happen to encounter that are obvious candidates because they have unsolveable problems. I also don't troll AfD !voting in every deletion discussion; I "pick my battles" by only joining those in which I feel I have a valid viewpoint to offer and can make a good argument either for or against. Drop the incivility and the personal attacks and focus on this article's problems, which you have yet to offer any solutions for. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You pick your battles and this was an obvious candidate? Are you implying IllaZilla that you go around looking for articles to delete and pick off the fledgeling articles that won't put up a fight? Are you like some sort of predatory fish that picks off the smaller weaker fish rather going in for the big ones? Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you, are you going to go along with a man who deletes things simply for the fun of it? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per DGG, Starblind. Major character in notable series. Edward321 (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A WP:ITSNOTABLE argument does not address any of the concerns expressed in the nomination. I suggest you take a look at the article's verifiability and other issues and base an opinion on that, since that is the root problem. Notability is shown through third-party sources (per WP:V), which for this character don't appear to exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we'd better find some then. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellant suggestion. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually read any of this discussion? I can't improve it because I can't find a single reliable source. If you want it improved, you fix it. I'm not going to waste any more time on an article for which zero good sources exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 11 October 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.