Talk:Astro Boy
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Mglovesfun in topic Astro Boy
Deletion debate
edit
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Fictional character. Encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - totally pointless entry. SemperBlotto 10:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Something for Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 13:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per WT:NOT. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cited, deal with it. DAVilla 20:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is an RfD. The three citations don't cover either of the two senses. Each sense should have three citations. I didn't think that we ever accepted citations for proper nouns that were similes, as two of the three offered are. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- The three citations do cover one of the senses, namely the one of the protagonist. Your bit about similes is out of left field. I'm not sure we've ever accepted citations of proper nouns at all. We've never really had to. If you want metaphorical use then you should put it to a vote, but such vote pointed out earlier has failed, with you voting against it. We have in fact no criteria for specific entities. The criteria we do have, for fictional universes, is already met:
- "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense."
- Apparently, these criteria do allow simile:
- Wielding his flashlight like a lightsaber, Kyle sent golden shafts slicing through the swirling vapors.
- our children […] looked at us as if we had just announced that we were from the planet Vulcan.
- DAVilla 16:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- The three citations do cover one of the senses, namely the one of the protagonist. Your bit about similes is out of left field. I'm not sure we've ever accepted citations of proper nouns at all. We've never really had to. If you want metaphorical use then you should put it to a vote, but such vote pointed out earlier has failed, with you voting against it. We have in fact no criteria for specific entities. The criteria we do have, for fictional universes, is already met:
- This is an RfD. The three citations don't cover either of the two senses. Each sense should have three citations. I didn't think that we ever accepted citations for proper nouns that were similes, as two of the three offered are. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Failed RFD; not adequately cited. Equinox ◑ 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Now further cited and restored one sense, letting the other fail. DAVilla 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thus reopening RFD per comments above: no consensus to keep. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- The first 3 citations support the attribute "robot"/"robotic". Granting that "Boy" implies humanoid, the definition "humanoid robot" is supportable. From the very fact that there are the five citations without (I assume) Astro Boy having been explicitly defined previously in the work, "well-known" would be supportable. I don't see that there are any other attributes supported by three citations. This makes the other attributes seem encyclopedic to me. They seem like good candidates for inclusion in the definition, but would need support, by my lights. As with many such fictional characters, only a tiny subset of the attributes in an encyclopedic article could be assumed to part of the meaning in everyday conversation or writing.
- Could "fiction" or "from fiction" be considered a context? DCDuring TALK 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thus reopening RFD per comments above: no consensus to keep. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Now further cited and restored one sense, letting the other fail. DAVilla 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
RFD-failed (again), citations aren't relevant to RFDs anyway; they're purely based on the opinions of the editors. This is not RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)