Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amethyst (character)

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 Delete uncontested. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amethyst (character)[edit]

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

Fictional character. Not sufficiently notable (WP:GNG); her coverage is limited to short passages in interviews and reviews. As a principal editor of the main article about the TV series, I'd like to avoid more places for in-universe fancruft to accumulate; there's already too much of that at List of Steven Universe characters. Sandstein 20:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, just delete it, I suppose. Garnet and Pearl had some good content due to sexuality, but I have no idea what to say about Amethyst. I mean, she's an interesting character for sure, but I don't remember anyone ever putting much focus on her while discussing the show. If all there is to use are episode summaries and series reviews, then you might as well not have an article on her. I'm sure she'll become notable at some point, but that's for the future to decide. ~Mable (chat) 13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An interview with a creator is not independent, and unreliable blog sources suggest this is bottom of the barrel in terms of independent notability outside of the fictional universe. Character can succinctly be discussed in a list of characters, to keep WP:FANCRUFT to a minimum. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that interviews with creators aren't independant. When an interview is held by a reliable source, I believe it should be held up to the same standards as other reliable sources. But yeah, it's still basically impossible to write an appropriately balanced article on Amethyst due to a lack of real-world impact. ~Mable (chat) 19:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it, with a note adding Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability.. Thus while content in interviews may be verifiable, it alone doesn't help establish notability, no matter how much detail creators go into about what they've created. In this particular case, an AMA on Reddit is hardly reliable, reputable source. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content on AMA and Reddit would be considered self-published sources, so those obviously don't establish notability. Something like this Newsarama interview does, however, as Newsarama is a reliable source and both the website and the writer (Lan Pitts) are independent from the creators of Steven Universe. This argument doesn't really have much to do with the reliability of Amethyst, as we both agree there's just to little to go on, but I like to make clear for whenever this article gets recreated that interviews from reliable sources are excellent places to find content, and self-published sources should generally be avoided. ~Mable (chat) 10:03, 9 April 2016 (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.