Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu-Tze

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 Discworld characters . Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lu-Tze

This character does not establish notability independent of Discworld through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character TTN (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Discworld characters (per WP:FICT). I would also urge the nominator to quit mass nominating such articles and perform the mergers themselves or request them on the appropriate page. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mgm. McWomble (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely not delete he is an important character and needs coverage somewhere. This is mostly good information that would quickly make the already long Character article unwieldy.--Beligaronia (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no evidence that the subject has any notability independent of the books. This article fails WP:FICTION. McWomble (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:FICTION says "Notability may be shown for an individual element[3] or for a certain grouping of elements, commonly characters or episodes.[4] When notability can be shown, the element or grouping of elements merits a separate article." I find it hard to believe it would be impossible to show notability for discworld characters in general; that having been done, notability does not need to be shown for this one specifically, only enough importance within the subject of discworld characters to warrant discussion. JulesH (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as above. No grounds for an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important haracter in series of landmark importance. Will be discussed in all the reviews. The rules for notability refer to the work in general, and appropriate major characters should get treatment in individual articles as the material best indicates. Given the complexity ofthe series, articles on the characters are a good ay to bring the information together. The sourcing for this material will be from the primary sources, as appropriatate for plot and character. Other aspects of the series mcuh be discussed, and will be in other components of the group of articles. DGG (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per MgM. I'm a fan of the Discworld so admit there's a bit of WP:ILIKEIT here - but I still consider inclusion in the list with other Discowrld characters more appropriate than the separate article.Plutonium27 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character in multiple books of an important fiction series. JulesH (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And the reliable sources supporting notability independent of the series are.....? McWomble (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discworld characters. I agree with WP:FICT that plot descriptions of fictional elements can be covered in a list until real-world information gets too much (currently not present). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:42, 21 November 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.