- 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 good reasons given for keeping, such as reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section, which is advised against in WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Lans Tartare' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions in game guides. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has been on meta basically unchanged for 5 years because it has been considered applicable and justifiable for all 5 years. There has been discussion from time to time on the talk page, as recently as 07. It's still active, its still the basis of WP. We're an encyclopedia, first, and we're not a paper encyclopedia. The rest follows. DGG (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PAPER is the direct evolution of the article on Meta. It even links to it, but then adds more clauses as to its applicability, including the one I quoted. I think it's clear that WP:PAPER is the more modern version of the ultra-inclusive Meta guideline, which has become somewhat obsolete. Doctorfluffy 22:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article has no primary or secondary sources to support this in universe plot summary. --Gavin Collins 10:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2007 (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.