Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appa and Momo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Only one vote for deletion and most for keeping or merging, so article should be proposed for merging at WP:PM if necessary. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appa and Momo

[edit]
Appa and Momo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of notability, only two external sources (the rest of the sources are just episodes from the show or features on a DVD), and one of them is not about these characters but rather about the voice actor who voiced them, and only makes passing mention of these characters. Article is basically plot summary, and what is worth preserving can be merged over to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters after the article itself is deleted/redirected. No significant attempt at improvement has been made since I pointed out these problems 10-odd days ago (see Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#A different approach. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way my consensus (if I had to choose) is mainly Keep or Incubate. Keep is preferable to me but if delete is preferable to the majority then Incubate is my consensus, instead. God bless! − Jhenderson 777 02:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "just plot summary", I said "basically plot summary". The only out-of-universe information in the article is mention of who voices the characters, and about two sentences saying what the creators had in mind when they came up with these characters. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for your other arguments, there is no rule on Wikipedia stating that in order to AfD one problematic article I also need to go AfD every other problematic article in the project. You linked WP:OTHERSTUFF, perhaps you should read it as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that you did. I just quoted that to set up this comment. Which makes me feel like he is targeting this imperfect start class article because I had something to do with it. I should have pluralized make to made because I don't really the same now but other wise I made my point. But if my original feeling was true then it is not fair because you shouldn't target the article just because you noticed a editor had their fingerprints on it. And you don't listen to me very while because I said I read that guideline on a different talk page. And please I don't really want argue over a article, I want our differences set aside. That's why I gave you wikilove on your talk page a while back. That's why I offered you to maybe work together to better the article instead of deleting information. I feel like you are a valid editor (but I don't think you feel the same about me) and I agree that it needs more external links. I still feel it is fine information wise and I still think it's a definite maybe on being notable which can be such a debatable term. Mainly the argument happened becuase you kind of went off topic. You complained in the wrong talk page section about your concerns about it's notability. That should be in the talk page of Appa and Momo itself or on AFD. And that's not why I created a section, I created the section to see the approval or disapproval about the new idea. User:Parent5446 is the only one who expressed opinion on that and he seemed to like the approach. But I understand though that doesn't mean it's notable and we need more sources. But I am kind of a inclusionist that's why I defended it a little. Primary sources with limited reliable sources are better than none. And it didn't look broke enough to cry out DELETE, DELETE, in my opinion. But that was just me and I understand your concerns as well. − Jhenderson 777 16:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must butt in briefly to tell both of you to calm down. I do not mean to be insulting, but the constant back and forth of Jhenderson accusing Rjanag of targeting him as an editor and then Rjanag rebutting with arguments over semantics is getting us nowhere. All further comments in this deletion discussion should be to provide evidence for or against the notability of the topic in question. If either of you believe there is some kind of editor conflict going on, this is not the place to settle it. Unfortunately, the discussion of the notability of the Avatar character and episode articles has been means for debate since I joined Wikipedia. The all-out battle that resulted when the WikiProject decided to trash the individual episode articles was humongous, and the character articles are just next in line. So let's be gentlemen (or ladies) here and get back to the topic on hand. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge - While I still weakly feel this article should be consolidated into List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, I also feel that little research and effort has been put into improving this article, and that (though I do not guarantee or even expect it) there is a possibility that there are more external sources than those that are in the article already, and that the article is more notable than let on in the current state of the article. In other words, I believe it is a premature decision to delete this article, especially considering that the article is the merger of two articles that, until recently, were considered notable enough to warrant their own articles. Furthermore, while my conclusive opinion is to merge, I do not agree with the reasoning or logic given by the nominator. It has been reasoned that because the current state of the article is mainly plot summary and that nobody has improved it in the past week that it is automatically not notable and deserving of deletion. If an author posts on the talk page that an article has problems, there is no expiration date or ultimatum set that must be satisfied if the article does not want to be deleted. I urge all editors, current and future, that are involved in this discussion do their own searching to see if the article is notable than rely solely on the comments made here. Finally, I believe that if the end result of this discussion is anything other than keep, the information in the Creation and conception section must, in some way, be preserved, most likely through a merge, because the information is important and relevant to the topic, and shows how other media in the real world (not the fictional universe) have affected the development of these characters and, as a result, the show itself. Sorry to bore you with such a long opinion. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Parent5446, I do think we are calm. We have our differences and we are debating over it. But that doesn't mean we are angry over it. I don't know if Rjanag is actually angry or not. But speaking in my point of view, I will defend him that I don't think he is angry and he is just explaining his point of view just as I am. It's a weakness of mine to explain what I believe is facts sometimes. − Jhenderson 777 17:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jhenderson. That's exactly what I wanted to hear you say. Sorry if I got a little obnoxious. :) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete generally a character is either notable enough for an article or should be included in a list--a two-character article like this is just nonstandard and strange. They both appear to be pretty well covered in the character list anyway, with a small paragraph-sized section each. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a two-character article like this is just nonstandard and strange.
See Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, Ren and Stimpy (characters), Thunder and Lightning (comics), Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, Pintel and Ragetti, etc. Are those non standard too. It's called a duo article and they can be up to standard. Some characters that are duos are notable enough to be divided such as Phineas Flynn and Ferb Fletcher and Tom Cat and Jerry Mouse but this article I wouldn't recommend. − Jhenderson 777 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Although I do not think the two-character approach is the best in this case (see my comments below), the fundamental tenant of WP:IAR not only allows but encourages editors to deviate from convention as long as the presentation of the subject matter would benefit from it. Every topic has its own individual characteristics and the point that this article doesn't fit in the usual cookie cutter mould is not relevant in itself. —CodeHydro 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UN-merge the two, keep Appa (note: changed to strong keep below in relist), and incubate Momo. I will say that it is not entirely without merit to deviate from the standard and keep Appa and Momo merged, considering the many shared attributes between the two fictional characters; however, such comparisons between the two characters would be much better presented, in my opinion, as a brief section within each of two separate individual articles. Articles that cover two characters together are usually best when the two characters are like two sides of the same coin or an inseparable team... like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. While I admit that most of what I know about this series comes from reading rather than actually watching the show, my impression is that Appa and Momo are fairly independent from each other despite their parallels. Of course, I could be wrong and will say that Appa and Momo are very frequently mentioned together from what I've seen, such as in this Happy Meal Toy and often in the same sentence from various news articles [1] [2] [3]
     After spending some time with my good friend Google, I believe there is more than enough out there about Appa to merit a stand-alone article. Indeed, the notability and importance of Appa is really not that difficult to prove... case and point: the Appamobile--that's right, somebody actually made their car look like Appa. Moreover, there is plenty more to say about topics such as the challenges the animators faced in adapting the 2D cartoon Appa into a life-like 3D beast for The Last Airbender film, as illustrated in this article from MTV, and how such was received by the fans. On the other hand, I'm still on the fence about Momo, though I believe there is more than reasonable potential for a stand-alone for that character as well.
     In any case, I believe that merging Appa into the list of characters would make Wikipedia's coverage of the character woefully inadequate considering its notability and importance to the series, as supported by the fact that the series dedicated a whole episode to the backstory of this non-speaking role. Although finding the combination of Appa and Momo to be less than ideal, I nonetheless find even the current awkward and cumbersome article to be much preferred over the proposed alternatives of merge or delete. Further merger would only make it more awkward than it already is.
Although I do not have time at the moment, I intend within the next few days to de-redirect the Appa article, expanding on the subjects on the points I mentioned above and more as well as pruning a lot of the unnecessary plot summary. I may or may not do this for Momo as well, depending on how much time I have and whether I am able to find more about that character. —CodeHydro 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an article about Momo individually once. But I wasn't too impressed with it so I redirected it. I have a feeling it would have been AFD'd anyways. That would kind of explain the reason why I included Momo in the picture and let a article reflect on both of Aang's pets not just Appa. Because I don't feel like one is more notable than the other. Comparitively they are the same to me. Now as for them being notable, that up for you to decide. ;) − Jhenderson 777 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you right now that the Appa article is just barely, if even, notable, so trying to get the Momo article to incubate on its own is almost out of the question. Momo is a minor character with little bearing on the show, and unless you can find external sources describing things like Momo's reception by the viewers, etc. then it will not stand on its own. I recommend using the Aang article is an example, because it is one of the better character articles on the WikiProject at this point. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be truly honest about the situation. Aang is the only good Avatar character article. This article is the second best when it comes to having sources everywhere, having a well informative Creation and Concept section and not being in-universe. Even though the sources are mainly primary. − Jhenderson 777 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't look to Aang's article in this case. I think Bulbasaur makes a much better model towards which to aspire since it was a former featured article and that Bulbasaur's importance to Pokémon is a good analogy to that of Appa's importance here. As for the comments about Momo, there is certainly potential for that character. I've found more than one source praising Momo as a "comic genius" which almost demonstrates notability by itself. —CodeHydro 19:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am just making a note that, although I haven't begun editing yet, I am still interested in working on the article and am confident that I can demonstrate sufficient notability to keep at least an article on Appa if not Momo as well. I would have begun expanding on the article two days ago, but I have been distracted by several unexpected personal issues. I apologize for the delay and request that this AfD discussion be extended by one extra week. Thank you. —CodeHydro 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the discussion should probably be re-listed, keep in mind that the article does not have to prove its own notability, we just need to prove or disprove it. If you find any outside sources that can be used to expand the article just bring them here and we can worry about actual expansion once the article is saved. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of recommending that from the get go. Because a character is ISN'T notable just because you feel like he isn't just like a character being determined notable becuase he feels like he is. Of course that is a point of view. That's why sources are essential. That's why I placed a {{find}} template on certain places. I don't recommend me as a googler though because I like or did like mainly staying primarily in Wikipedia. Searching sources can be tough for me when the character isn't a OBVIOUS notable character. − Jhenderson 777 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My current opinion on the matter as aforementioned is a weak merge because of my uneasiness about the notability of the topic, but if a reasonable number of reliable secondary sources are presented showing significant coverage then notability will have been successfully demonstrated for the topic. I will attempt to find some sources but historically I have not shown much skill in the matter, so hopefully some others will come and help out. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the list of characters. None of them have become truly notable, a couple of lines mentioning them in reviews of the series are not enough. Take Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader or Homer Simpson as examples of notable characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I knew you were going to say merge knowing you as a editor. But merging sounds ridiculous only because Appa and Momo is a useless name title for a redirection. Come on let's think about this. You might as well delete the title name of this article will be merged. Also Lord Opeth, I don't think using primary fictional characters that everybody has heard of as good examples. These are secondary characters. I don't even think the primary character of the show involved, Aang, fits in their department. One time I mentioned a lot of duos in this AFD they are better examples, duos or not. Codehydro mentioned Bulbasaur too, (Some people will be like who is that yet he's notable to others) that will work as well. − Jhenderson 777 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you can create an article with an unusual title and have automatic protection from merging? That is what it sounds like you're trying to say. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I am just saying it's a useless redirection name title (Appa and Momo is). Not a useless article name title. People are going to search for one of the characters not both at the same time. Please don't assume that I am against a merge. I am sorry that I am not if I am not making any sense with that comment whatsoever. It was late I guess. ;) − Jhenderson 777 15:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jhenderson this is exactly what I was talking about before. Assuming that Lord Opeth's opinion is influencing solely by his personality as an editor is presumptuous and degrading to this argument. Wikipedia is not a bipartisan organization where editors vote along party lines and can be called out on doing so. That comment was out of line. Furthermore, the point he is trying to make by giving examples such as Mickey Mouse is that notability is not something handed out at Wikipedia like free cotton candy. Unless other evidence is provided there is little, if any, secondary sourcing that supports the notability of Appa and Momo. The Aang article was lucky to survive under the given circumstances, and it was only preserved because Avatar happened to develop a significant fan base and news sources, blogs, etc. happened to take interest in Aang as a character enough to write about him, thus the creation of secondary sources. While I will still withdraw my recommendation for merger if more secondary sources are presented, at this point we are trying to prove that two pets in an animated children's television series are somehow notable enough to deserve their own entry in an encyclopedia when one of the articles could barely stand on its own and the other was blatantly redirected due to obvious lack of notability. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously!!! I did not mean any offense out of knowing that he would vote merge. Now maybe it wasn't necessary to say. But it wasn't supposed to be where you had to be preachy about Wikipedia to me. It was out of respect that I know the editor that way that I said that. Nothing wrong with saying aha I knew you said that, it was random but it was a supposedly unoffensive comment out of respect. Not to be mistaked as out of line. My words seem to be minefields with you (plural). ;) And I just had different opinion on what are better opinions as examples. My point was Mickey Mouse is obviously a primary example for a obvious notable character and of top importance while I think the mere focus of example should be more secondary with low importance characters. But I get what he got as well. Don't take my quotes as a context (which I am saying with a silly grin on my face). − Jhenderson 777 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now looking back at the edit it doesn't look the way I wanted it. I mean more judging by watching his contributions and noticing that he has requested merge's or merged back in the past a lot. So I just kind of said what I already told myself before I read the comment when I noticed he contributed here and when I looked in the comment I was like "I knew it". So I was just sharing that yep I knew that your vote before I read your vote out of RESPECT. But still no offense, and sorry if it sounded out of line because I did not mean to make it sound like you thought it sound. − Jhenderson 777 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for burning a hole on this AFD but I have a new result. I am ok with merging for the time being because basically I still have the information saved from the userspace draft I started to use to create the article of two together. So if Code Hydro still have faith on the characters and when he has time to do it. He can contribute there if he ever wants it back as a article. − Jhenderson 777 20:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to fix it on a userspace draft first or in the Article Incubator first. Or somebody will do exactly what you said to to when he isn't even complete with it yet. − Jhenderson 777 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on Appa. I've just finished the first draft of Appa#Reception_and_legacy, which has turned out quite well in my opinion. Heck, it makes the reception section on Aang--described as the only good Avatar article on Wikipedia--look pathetic in comparison. This is why I prefer demonstrating notability via editing than arguing in AfD. ;) As for Momo, he will probably have to languish in userspace or the incubator for a while because I don't really have the time to save him as well, though I still think he has a reasonable level of notability from what I've found. —CodeHydro 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. If you are going to vote again, could you please strike your first vote?
    2. This AfD is not about whether or not to delete an article on Appa, it's about whether or not to delete Appa and Momo. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rjanag, my opinion hasn't really changed. I still think Appa should be kept, only more so because I feel that the new reception and legacy section for Appa has demonstrated iron-clad notability. For now, since I am too busy, I will have to allow Momo to be temporarily redirected to the character list article so the record remains in the history in case any editor finds the time to fix Momo. Moreover, as per Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY. an AfD is not a vote, so it doesn't really matter whether I cross out what I said prior to the re-list or not. But if it makes you happy, then I'll make a note that I've "re-voted" in my previous comment. —CodeHydro 06:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is Rjanag. It's still related. Appa was a redirection of this article but he felt the characters should be divided again. So he fixed it only on that article. He probably should have fixed it on this article and then make a consensus to divide them. I will only support with what he is doing if he can fix up Momo as well. (One reason is that is still said on the Appa article still mentions Momo a little bit) Otherwise what he has done could still be put here. Jhenderson 777 15:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep abundant out-of-universe content. Whether it should be one article or two can be discussed separately DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that my nomination statement prominently mentions the lack of external sources (e.g. lack of out-of-universe material), I would appreciate it if you could point to examples of this "abundant" out-of-universe content. All I see is a couple sentences about development (much of which is not actually about development, but just random comments from show writers), and a source that's not even about these characters. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the sake of this AfD, you can pretend everything in the newly restored Appa article is part of this article since we haven't really discussed the de-merger yet (much like how the merger was never fully discussed either). Both the original merger and my de-merger for this AfD were done under the priniple of WP:Bold for the sake of demonstrating the article concept. In my opinion, if either Appa and Momo or Appa are considered keep-able then neither should be deleted for now. We can take a few days to discuss which one should be redirected to the other and merge the non-overlapping content after this AfD. —CodeHydro 06:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever is in that article is irrelevant to this AfD. Saying that one article should be kept because you wrote some other article doesn't make sense. The reason this AfD was opened is to determine if "Appa and Momo" is an encyclopedic topic, not to talk about whether or not you did a good job writing an article on "Appa". rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanag I understood what CodeHydro said. And he made his point quite clear that either this or the other article needs to be merged and that at least one of the characters on this article has supposedly established notability while explaining it on a different article. That has made things more complicated in some areas though. Jhenderson 777 17:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about one character, it's an unencyclopedic lumping of two characters together. If I made an article Milk and my friend Bob, no one would vote "Keep, milk is notable at least". rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Appa_and_Momo&oldid=1144338827"