User talk:MR.LISYT

February 2011[edit]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Vince Neil. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mississippi Mug Pie for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mississippi Mug Pie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississippi Mug Pie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RadioFan (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character articles[edit]

Please don't create separate articles for characters that only appear in 1 or 2 films. Topics must meet the notability threshold, which requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is nothing to say about the characters Marcus Wright (Character), Lilia, Evan Baxter, or God (Bruce Almighty) outside the context of the films in which they appear, and as such these articles have been redirected to the articles on the films. Please don't create any more character articles unless you've already gathered enough sources to demonstrate that the character has significant notability outside of merely their role in the film's plot. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for creating lists of characters, too. This is a single film; there's nothing to say about the characters outside the context of the film itself. We don't need a slew of articles to cover fictional elements from a single film: it's far preferable to keep the information in the film article and have 1 well-written article on the film rather than a half-dozen poor articles that merely expound on the fictional characters & elements in the film's plot. It may benefit you to read the following:

--IllaZilla (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wasn't kidding. Now you've re-created the Lilia article & are creating cruft topics related to Terminator. Please do read the links I've provided for you, as well as WP:SOURCES and WP:RS for guidance on what constitutes "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Please don't create anymore articles or lists on fictional characters/concepts until you've read & understand these policies & guidelines. Many of the articles you've created are likely to face deletion as the topics don't pass the threshold for notability. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even Mug Pie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.LISYT (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring specifically to the fictional film character/concept articles listed above, but yes, Mississippi Mug Pie falls under WP:N too. Again, please read the above links to get a better understanding of Wikipedia's thresholds for inclusion and the types of sources required to demonstrate a subject's notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so just because something exists (like Mississippi Mug Pie) doesn't mean it's a good topic for a stand-alone encyclopedia article. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if I merge it with Mud Pie? MR.LISYT (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try writing a bit about the mug pie concept in the mud pie article, but you'll still need reliable secondary sources to verify your claims. Don't try to merge or redirect the article right now, though: It's at AfD and has to stay in place until the deletion discussion concludes. You are free to expand/improve it while that discussion takes place (deletion discussions usually last 7 days), or to write a similar section in the mud pie article. You're also encouraged to share your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mississippi Mug Pie, since you're the article's creator. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

It appears you weren't properly welcomed, so please allow me to roll out the welcome mat:

Welcome!

Hello, MR.LISYT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia[edit]

Should I do more research to look how she's noticable outside the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.LISYT (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try, but if it were me I wouldn't bother. A good rule of thumb is that if a character only appears in a single work, their notability is inextricably tied to that work and it makes little sense to try to separate the character from the context of the work as a whole. Inevitably, 95% of separate articles on fictional characters that only appear in a single work of fiction either get deleted or redirected to the article on the work itself. Also be wary of the assumption that because a character appears in more than just 1 work (like Evan Baxter in Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty) that they merit a stand-alone article: this assumption is misleading—the threshold is always that the character has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is the essential qualification whether the character has appeared in one work or two or even twenty. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]