Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elora Danan

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elora Danan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article doesn't explain why the subject is notable at all. The cited informations are just small info about the filming. Neocorelight (Talk) 16:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Neocorelight (Talk) 16:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Skynxnex (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the character now appears in Willow (TV series) and is getting coverage in that role, as is evidenced by Google News hit above. Of note, the article contains none of this yet, so there is absolutely an opportunity to expand this. Page has 45k views in the past 30 days, suggesting our readers need this expanded, not merged or deleted. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Willow (film) for now - while a Google search shows the character has received coverage, the state of the article is currently WP:TNT material. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Striking my earlier comment given the improvements that have since been made to the article. Suggest draftify as the reception section isn't there yet. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it might be a good idea to make a list of Willow characters instead, given how some of them overlap between the movie and the TV show now. Ausir (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not "TNT material" because TNT makes no reference to fictional content at all: Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. is what it actually says. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (re: 12/19 update) You want to remove from mainspace an article that you agree meets notability guidelines just because the reception section is currently too shallow? Can someone point me to a policy that says a fictional element has to have a reception section? Or explain why your reasoning doesn't run afoul of WP:NEXIST? Jclemens (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) I agree we need a list of Willow characters and some major characters (e.g., Willow himself) might be worthy of their own articles, however, whether that is true of Elora Danan is debatable (especially in light of her major appearances in the new TV series). I do believe deletion at his time is poorly timed and hasty as things are still developing (along with new reference sources). —Uzume (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The quotes provided don't suffice to show WP:SIGCOV is met, so no need for a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:NEXIST yet? It's just a wee bit farther down in WP:N from WP:SIGCOV. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens The counter to that is WP:TNT and like. Some topics are notable, but we need to show this; keeping WP:FANCRUFTy plot summaries is not a good solution. That said, I always prefer redirecting such stuff, until a time someone can rewrite it. I just did it today with telescreen. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:TNT? I just did, again. Did someone change it, or does your interpretation that it applies to fictional elements entirely hinge on the word "useless" including precisely what you deem useless? There's nothing in that essay at all that's specifically applicable to fictional topics. I have yet to see it be meaningfully quoted, rather than referenced with a WP:VAGUEWAVE by you or any other editor at a deletion discussion. It's entirely dependent on an interpretation of WP:ATD that ignores the first line: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ keep ~~or move to draft~~, given the inevitability of substantial coverage of a character prominently featured in a popular series. A Google search right now for "Elora Danan" already returns tons of hits for the character. BD2412 T 20:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- !Vote changed to straight "keep" after a search for additional sources turned up plenty, some now added to the article. BD2412 T 04:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or draftify The article is in a pretty lousy shapy after 17(!) years. Arguing it will get better is either WP:CRYSTAL or void of any reality. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know, in the general case--waiting for someone to improve a random article is futile--I would agree with you. In this case, however, unlike the past 16ish years, there is, as this discussion unfolds, a current, reasonably well supported (Disney+) television show featuring this character as a major human MacGuffin which is dropping new episodes weekly. I'd say that pushes it towards the "really likely to be improved" end of the bell curve of article activity. Remember how I said we had 45k page views in the past 30 days? As of now, we're up to 63k. Redirecting or draftifying such a popular article simply doesn't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. BD2412 T 03:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not convinced that this needs a stand-alone character at this point. It's IMDB-like casting infos (trivial), a bit of sourced plot, and bits of ad-like characterization that lacks long-term perspective/importance (because the show hasn't run long enough). All of this may change in a few months, yes, bit I think it can be better proven via a draft or a spin-out. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Jclemens:, @Uzume:, and @BD2412:. If it is kept, the page needs to be improved with information from the TV series. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a HEY? Pinging Sgeureka, Satellizer, Piotrus, neocorelight to see if opinions have changed in light of BD2412's improvement. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only a characterization section. The article still doesn't give the impression why this character deserve a Wikipedia article. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the multiple independent RS'es covering the character in non-trivial detail. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still (easily) finding and adding sources. BD2412 T 20:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned whether SIGCOV is met, it doesn't appear obvious but let me know if 2+ sources have a paragraph long, at least, analytical treatment and I'll reconsider. For now, I'd support merging the newly added content somewhere, it is certainly better than a pure fan plot summary that was here before. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep your non-policy-based additional criteria in mind for the future. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: How do you like this one and this one? That's two; more to come. BD2412 T 21:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 Not as bad as I feared. Can you ping me if we get any sort of reception/analysis section going? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and for the record, WP:NEXIST is still policy, which makes your !vote non-policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify: the search from BD2141 looks promising. I believe this article has WP:POTENTIAL and I would expect to see improvements. If the sources are thinner than they appear, I would understand a merge discussion or another AFD. Archrogue (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And now we're up to a rolling 30 day average of 72.7k. Someone else can do the math, but given the increasing number, I believe that means that over 2/3rds of those visitors have seen the article since this AfD started. Even assuming there's going to be some softening, we're still looking at this in a Wikipedia:Million Award category of at least 250k/year, possibly 500k/year. Jclemens (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2022 (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.