Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jace Beleren

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 Magic: The Gathering. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Beleren

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

This does not establish notability independent of Magic: The Gathering through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are 3rd party sources there that seem to be reliable. I don't think we need an entire article on this character, but perhaps one on Planeswalkers or something? Don't know enough about MtG to really guess. I'm opposed to deletion, but don't have a merge target at hand.Hobit (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Contrary to the nomination statement, the article primarily consists of non-plot information, such as what cards he has appeared on, the gameplay abilities of those cards, and what sets those cards are in. There are only a couple sentences of plot details. TTN, I know you like to use basically the same nomination statement for many of your AFD nominations, but please at least edit it so that it is accurate for the article you are currently discussing. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jace is a pretty major character in the game, so shouldn't he get at least some mention? There used to be an article on Planeswalkers, but that's been merged into Magic: The Gathering, but maybe someone with more knowledge on this subject should make a List of Planeswalkers page, then we could merge this into that. For now, though, I oppose deletion. Supernerd11 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the entire race that this character belongs to isn't considered well-supported enough to merit an article, it is difficult to see how the character belongs. Most of the article is about gameplay minutiae with, as the nominator mentions, is better off placed in Wikia than here. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the notability of a single character should be dependent on whether the group he belongs to is also notable just doesn't align with Wikipedia policy at all. Jace certainly could be covered in reliable sources without reliable sources also covering planeswalkers in general (I assume you are referring to planeswalkers when you say race, even though it wouldn't be called a "race" in terms of the plot). Calathan (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus of editors that a subtopic of an area isn't notable, then other editors can take notice of that when considering the notability of a sub-sub-topic. In any event, real-world notability established by independent sources is absent for this character. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a sub-sub-topic though. To make a comparison to things that are more widely known, that would be like saying Obi-Wan Kenobi is a sub-topic of Jedi, or like saying Albus Dumbledore is a subtopic of wizards in the Harry Potter series. One is a major character in the plot, and the other is the type of character he is. It is quite possible, even likely in many cases, that a major character in the plot of a fictional work would be more widely covered than the special type of being he is. I agree on the sources issue though. Calathan (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, then. I thought it was more like having an article about (to maintain the Star Wars analogies) Oola with no corresponding article about Twi'leks. Although, If it was more like the Jedi situation, I can't conceive having an article about any individual Jedi without also having an article about the Jedi as a concept. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Jace has been probably the most prominent character in the plot of Magic for the last several years, and one of his individual cards is one of the most significant cards printed in the last several years, but I'm not personally aware of any independent reliable sources that cover him (though I haven't made a significant effort to look). It looks like the sources in the article are either primary (published by Wizards of the Coast), or unreliable. Without reliable sources the article shouldn't be kept, but since he is a major character in the plot, I think a redirect might be good (perhaps just to Magic: The Gathering). Calathan (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a major fictional character within the MTG universe, but as those above me have pointed out, not one that has received much if any substantial independent coverage. Does not meet the WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 2 February 2014 (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.