Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Danya Gordin


 * 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. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Danya Gordin

 * I was unable to find anything on this character, or the show from which he/she is taken. I'm assuming this is a hoax, unless someone can provide information to the contrary. ~ UDScott 12:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed.Result: delete (five votes to delete (one to speedy), no dissent). —LrdChaos (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. ~ UDScott 12:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, unremarkable subject. "Danya Gordin" results in one unique Google hit, about an obviously non-fictional intramural swimmer. "Battle on Beta 9", the supposed work containing this character, yields zero Google hits. Supposed author Jessie Mack is unidentified, with no clear candidate suggested by Google (although my money would be on a certain Australian MySpacer). There is no way this work, let alone a character within the work, can be considered notable enough for inclusion here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Disagree with Jeff Q that it qualifies for SD.  121a0012 03:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Question, 121a0012: do you disagree because the current SD:US text only mentions non-fictional people and groups of people, which would seem to be a simple omission of what constitutes an unremarkable subject for creative works (and their components, like characters) and themes? Do you disagree because you feel the subject is asserting notability or is disputed or controversial? Or is there another reason? I'd like to clarify this, especially as we're still testing the new policy. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On this matter, I agree with 121a0012 that this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. The "unremarkable subject" clause specifically limits itself to "real" people. This is the same idea as Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy, but I can't quite understand the rationale for it (just yesterday, I came across a two-sentence article about a fictional character, and the second sentence was something like " does nothing important."; I wanted to tag it for speedy deletion, but since it was a fictional character, it didn't meet the criteria). The only reason that I can think of for this (keeping in mind that I haven't taken the time to read through old Wikipedia discussions about the policy) is that usually when a page is created for a fictional character, there's already a page for the corresponding book/movie/TV show/game they're in, and the character page can be merged into that. This did get me to notice one other thing: the "unremarkable subject" criteria applies only to people and groups, not to other things like literary works or movies. We have had pages for self-published books and homemade films here before, so it's not as though it doesn't happen, though it is rare relative to the number of non-notable people for whom pages are created. (The sneaky way to deal with unnotable literary works is to convert the page into one for the author, which can then be speedy-deleted; this would meet the letter of the policy, though not really the spirit). —LrdChaos (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I want clarification from 121a0012. Since we're testing the policy, we should work to make the letter match the spirit, so we don't need to perform gymnastics to do what obviously is going to result in a deletion, or to avoid it because of technicalities. But I don't want to miss other considerations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As you may recall, I was a bit dubious about SD:US during the discussion of the new policy. My personal feeling is that any introduction at all constitutes an assertion of notability, unless the text itself says otherwise ("Joe Blow is a 16-year-old philosophy student at Christopher Columbus High School").  I would rather err on the side of open discussion, in the case of some possibly-notable-but-obscure subject, than to have an article simply vanish unnoticed because one admin didn't find it in a Google search.  I never even considered the "fictional character" argument made by the others.  121a0012 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making that clear. I'm still leaning toward an SD vote in a VfD discussion (different from db-tagging an article without discussion) as a reasonable possibility if it includes compelling evidence that the introductory info cannot be found in notability sources (can you think of any notable work that has zero Google presence?), but your prudence and caution have obvious merit. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as I don't believe this qualifies for speedy deletion (see my comment above). —LrdChaos (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree that the current speedy deletion policy is for nonfictional people only. - InvisibleSun 20:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.