This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jclemens (talk | contribs) at 03:18, 15 August 2022 (→Willoughby Kipling: The logic/policy interface failure here is impressive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:18, 15 August 2022 by Jclemens (talk | contribs) (→Willoughby Kipling: The logic/policy interface failure here is impressive)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Willoughby Kipling
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Willoughby Kipling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic fails WP:GNG. Mentions in reliable sources appear to be limited to trivial mentions and pop culture fluff articles. TTN (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep What the nom terms "pop culture fluff articles" are in fact non-trivial independent reliable sources like ScreenRant, Decider, CBR, and Cinemablend. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, minor fluff that brings absolutely nothing to the table:
- ScreenRant: Literally nothing but an overview of the character for the uninitiated, covering what already exists in the article. No usable commentary on the character.
- Decider: Another minor introductory overview with basically nothing usable.
- CBR: Same as the above
- Cinemablend: Same as the above
- All of them are basically useless in both producing content for the article and fulfilling GNG. It confirms the character does in fact exist in the show and gives an extraordinarily minor development tidbit that is already covered by primary sources in the "Publication history" section. TTN (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- They (and I grant that the coverage is quite overlapping) cover the character, its development history, why is a John Constantine-substitute. You admit that an RS--four, even--cover the basics about the character, but then complain that there's no commentary. GNG does not mention, let alone require, commentary. WP:NOTPLOT states we should cover "development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" In what we have here, we have development, significance, and influence, arguably design... and that's just from the first page of Google News search. Moreover, we are supposed to follow the weight and proportion of what's in the RS'es per WP:DUE, so if RS'es cover plot and development without commentary, we would be UNDUE to demand commentary. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines around fictional elements before starting AfDs based on your own preferred criteria which do not appear therein. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- GNG requires non-trivial coverage. They are four cookie-cutter articles regurgitating the same basic clickbait information they probably got from Misplaced Pages in the first place. They don't even have a real place in the article because they bring absolutely nothing new to the table. If a source cannot be used in an article, then it is by definition trivial coverage. If simply being mentioned in a reliable source was enough, every single modern character from a semi-notable series would have an article because these sites do the same thing on a daily basis for probably literally every single character. That's not to mention that listicle-producing trash like SR and CBR probably barely skirt being RSs, if they even count. TTN (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- You know what? That's perfectly circular logic, so devoid of actual policy support, that you've well and truly dug a hole: You're arguing that RS'es that confirm our article is correct don't contribute to notability, and that multiple RS'es saying the same thing is reason to discount all of them. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- GNG requires non-trivial coverage. They are four cookie-cutter articles regurgitating the same basic clickbait information they probably got from Misplaced Pages in the first place. They don't even have a real place in the article because they bring absolutely nothing new to the table. If a source cannot be used in an article, then it is by definition trivial coverage. If simply being mentioned in a reliable source was enough, every single modern character from a semi-notable series would have an article because these sites do the same thing on a daily basis for probably literally every single character. That's not to mention that listicle-producing trash like SR and CBR probably barely skirt being RSs, if they even count. TTN (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Want more commentary? Fine. Den of Geek, IGN India, Flickering Myth: three more unique RS'es commenting on the episode in which the character first appears. Satisfied? Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- All trivial mentions that wouldn't even be worth putting in episode articles (of which none even exist), let alone a character article. I repeat that all sites do this on a daily basis for all shows. These are not sources that help anything meet GNG. TTN (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)