Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorah Mormont

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 keep‎. While the lengthy policy debate here was interesting to read, a cogent source analysis of existing articles sources and those brought up in the discussion would have been more helpful to both a closer and editors coming to this discussion after the first 2 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorah Mormont

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This page is just another plot summary and should be merged to the list of game of thrones characters. This character isn't important to the plot of the books or movies, and there is no secondary analysis of this character. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Let's see... TIME, EW, Buzzfeed, Business Insider, Screenrant, Harper's Bazaar, and even JAMA Dermatology. Yeah. That's plenty of coverage for the character. The two "listicles" are all about Jorah, not just ones that include him as an entry. WP:BEFORE is there for a reason, which is in part to make sure that opinions in nominating statements (This character isn't important to the plot of the books or movies, and there is no secondary analysis of this character.) are sanity checked. Keep Please withdraw this and go spend time integrating the sources I found for you into the article. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ for now. No analysis or reception, just plot summary. No prejudice to seeing this restored if someone at least tries to show notability, but until that happens, fandom/wikia will do just fine, and we can have a redirecto to a list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can? Cross-linking to Wikia/Fandom has been forbidden for well over a decade--when did this change? Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain they meant that people who want to read the in-universe information can go to Fandom/Wikia, while we can redirect to a Wikipedia list such as List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. TompaDompa (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination just describes the article as it is now, which is not decisive for the question of deletion according to WP:ARTN. Secondary sources exist to show that this topic is notable, and they directly contradict the nominator's assertion that character isn't important to the plot of the books or movies, and there is no secondary analysis of this character. Aside from the source already listed, Jorah Mormont appears in a number of scholarly sources. E.g. Daenerys Targaryen as Queen Elizabeth I’s Spiritual Daughter compares the character with Francis Walsingham and THE JOURNEY OF DAENERYS TARGARYEN: A HERO ARCHETYPAL ANALYSIS analyzes how he fits into the roles for the Mentor and the Ally from Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey. The WP:BEFORE step of the deletion process should not be skipped! Daranios (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Jclemens and Daranios. Toughpigs (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination is correct that this article currently consists of little more than in-universe information, a violation of both WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTPLOT. WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) thus applies. WP:NOTABILITY is an orthogonal question. There are two principal ways of addressing this problem: redirect/merge to a character list, as was suggested by the nominator, or expand with additional information that would bring this article to an acceptable state. I don't see a case for keeping the article without adding analysis. If such material is not added, redirecting/merging is not only a perfectly cromulent alternative but the appropriate course of action. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect; notability is the deciding factor in an Articles for Deletion discussion. Check out WP:NEXIST — the current state of the article is immaterial. The thing that decides notability is that sources exist in the world that can be used to improve the article. Toughpigs (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, here you are the one who is wrong. Notability is not in fact the sole deciding factor in AfD discussions; notability is but one of fourteen canonical WP:Reasons for deletion, a list that is explicitly non-exhaustive. Notable topics also do not always receive stand-alone pages but may be covered by articles on related topics (often ones with a broader scope), see WP:PAGEDECIDE. "This is notable" is not an argument for keeping, as opposed to e.g. merging, an article. "This is notable" is also not a counterargument to other arguments for deletion than a lack of notability, which I'm sure you understand—it would be a complete non sequitur to respond to "this violates WP:NOT" with "it is notable". TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then which of those reasons for deletion would you use here? It's not vandalism, it's not a copyright violation, it's not advertising or spam, and it's not a content fork. The relevant reasons are "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". It has been established that reliable sources exist, and therefore it meets the relevant notability guideline. Toughpigs (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to my original comment. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been shown that coverage of this topic in the sources listed is sufficient. Right now the keep votes are saying WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES, without even bothering to quote useful parts of the article, which for all we know mitght be just passing mentions and plot summaries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted seven; Daranios posted two more. Are you asserting that you are incapable of clicking links, reading them, and making an independent assessment of value? Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that it ignores the advice at WP:DEL If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Editing to incorporate even two of these sources would address the relevant reason for deletion, therefore deletion on the basis of NOT#PLOT is not a legitimate option. This is pretty basic stuff: "this article sucks" may be true but (unlike "this article is unfixable") is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and to expand: the policy is can address, not does address, so it is absolutely not required that any article that can be fixed, actually be fixed in order to survive AfD. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except we don't know if this can be fixed. There is no evidence that any of the cited sources contains useful material. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are capable of reading and understanding sources, on what epistemological basis would you think we might be unable to deduce that the sources listed above could be used in the article? Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read your own sources, including a listicle of the 28 best faces he made? "when he threw shade on daario" is the longest sentence. Or the other listicle you provided? He is a minor character in a huge series. There is no deeper analysis other than he was a minor romantic foil in a long soap opera. This should be a redirect unless someone has a substantial source. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This article violates WP:NOT" is canonically a WP:Reason for deletion. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. This is also really besides the point as nobody in this discussion has argued for deletion—what has been suggested is redirecting/merging. TompaDompa (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC; it specifically lists "Delete per WP:NOT" as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Also, yes this is a deletion discussion, see title of page: "Articles for deletion". Toughpigs (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are mistaken. The essay you refer to suggests that merely asserting that something violates WP:NOT without elaborating further is a non-argument that should be avoided, but it also notes that when the rationale explains how that policy is violated, the argument is valid. Violating that policy is also, as is noted above, one of the canonical reasons for deletion listed in our deletion policy. And while this is indeed an AfD discussion, such discussions do not fall into a keep/delete dichotomy but additionally cover various WP:Alternatives to deletion, such as merging or redirecting. You need only read what has actually been written by the people who disagree with you to see that nobody has advocated for deletion, while some people have advocated for redirecting or merging. TompaDompa (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and on that same policy page, immediately below that section is the discussion about editing to fix an issue being preferable to deletion, which was already addressed above. Do you have any not-yet-rebutted argument to offer? Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preferable to deletion, which nobody is suggesting. Merging or redirecting, which is what has actually been suggested, is fixing the problem. Or are you suggesting that we should retain flagrant violations of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOT when we have perfectly plausible merge/redirect targets? Would you similarly suggest that we should retain other policy violations, e.g. WP:BLP violations or copyright violations, instead of merging/redirecting? TompaDompa (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is WP:NOT an argument for deletion, or redirection? If the latter, then we're agreed this AfD can close with no action, right? Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the general case, violating WP:NOT is a canonical WP:Reason for deletion. In this specific case, what has been suggested is an WP:Alternative to deletion, namely merging/redirecting. Surely you know that WP:AfD discussions can be closed in other ways than "keep" or "delete", such as "merge" or "redirect"? If you oppose merging/redirecting as an outcome here, it behooves you to make an argument as to why that would not be a preferable outcome to keeping (or any other outcome, for that matter). TompaDompa (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's easy: He's notable. WP:NEXIST is well documented above. Jclemens (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not preclude merging; not all notable topics are best covered at stand-alone articles (WP:NOPAGE). I refuse to believe that you, with multiple years of experience at AfD, are unaware of this. TompaDompa (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preclude? Don't recall saying that it did. But you realize that arguing that an article be redirected, removing it from normal viewing, is viewed as a less positive outcome than allowing it to exist, unredirected, such that it can be improved? Really, I've been poking at the silliness of using NOT to justify the pseudo-deletion of a notable, improvable article. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad content is bad whether it has potential to be improved or not. We can mitigate the badness by redirecting—the content isn't lost and the topic is covered at the proposed target. Of course it would be better to improve the article, but somebody has to actually do so. I'm not volunteering (in this case—as you know I have done so in multiple other cases), and neither are you. Daranios has, which is great, but until they did your position amounted to keeping an article in a 100% policy-violating state indefinitely. TompaDompa (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And two more German secondary sources: Das vergessene Subjekt, p. 298-299 has a page on Mormont (which actually confirms the flippant "when he threw shade on Daario" by BuzzFeed in a more serious way in an academic publication). And Leadership by Game of Thrones, p. 150-153+, has a chapter dedicated to him, of which 3 pages are visible on Google books, the chapter there is ongoing. That should even more clearly push the topic beyond the notability threshold and provide the additional sources Big Money Threepwood has requested. As it has been claimed that keep votes are saying WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES, I want to point out that that specific argument to avoid in a deletion discussion is when there is only a claim that sources are out there without providing them. This has not been the case. As for WP:NOT, I think the better solution to our WP:ALLPLOT problem here is to use the sources which have been found, rather than redirect first and improve later. I have made a bit of a start. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Splendid. I agree that improving the article now is preferable to redirecting it and potentially improving it later (which in turn is preferable to keeping it without improvement). TompaDompa (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - And therein lies your fundamental disconnect with policy: WP:WIP. If you would rather see an improvable article turned into a redirect just because someone hasn't made that improvement, you have a perspective incompatible with the original goals of Wikipedia. You're not alone. Many such people have an irrational belief that deleting or redirecting something will cause a better article to be written. While I try not to mock others' religious beliefs, this one really does deserve derision. Not saying that you hold it, mind you, but if you don't... why on earth would you think a redirect is better than an improvable article? Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would rather an outright policy violation be removed than retained, whether that policy be WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, or something else. So should you. This is, in fact, fully in line with Wikipedia's WP:Editing policy, which on the subject of veracity states that a lack of content is better than misleading or false content—the same principle applies to other kinds of major issues. I'm sure you are aware that it is entirely possible for bad content to never be improved. Bad content, whether it be bad because it is WP:Original research, violates WP:NOT, has massive language issues, or something else, is a negative. I'm all for improving content where possible—that's why George Griffith is now a WP:Featured article after the deletion discussion last year—but sometimes improving Wikipedia also means removing the bad stuff. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good for you. I'm sorry your life is being ordered by those who complain about the current states of articles without lifting a finger to improve articles themselves. Frankly, I worry that such undermines the wisdom of WP:SOFIXIT In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it. by rewarding critics who point out errors they themselves are capable of fixing, yet instead demand that others fix. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - While there are several people in this discussion who have not volunteered to fix the article (I am one of them, and so are you), the only one who has demanded that somebody else fix it is you. TompaDompa (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hey y'all, this lengthy conversation is just making it harder for the person who ultimately closes this discussion. I think that everybody has made their points very clearly. I would suggest that we take a step back, let some other people take a look at the page and the sources, and make their own judgments. Toughpigs (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Daranios has saved this article. It now has a reception section. Thank you for your effort. (If someone thinks that section or sources used are inadequate, do ping me, but for now I am willing to AGF this given my experience with Daranios and the fact that we now have several paragraph-long reception). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Daranios' improvements to the article, with the reception showing the real world importance and notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2024 (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.