Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gage Creed (character)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Creed (character)[edit]

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

Gage Creed (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Again, deprodded without rationale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 00:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 00:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pet Sematary. Demonstrates little real-world notability, as the sources are generally either plot-only, or are not particularly in depth. Calling him the "primary antagonist" of the book is kind of a stretch, and several of the sources present in the article don't seem to even support the information that they are being linked to. That said, as a fairly important character in a well-known book, redirecting this to the book's main article, where a detailed plot summary fully covering Gage's role, is already present.Rorshacma (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination raises some procedural points so let's dispose of those first. The prod is one of several made using an automated tool and using the same cookie-cutter rationale, "Zero real world notability". This assertion was made without evidence and was false because the article stated, for example, "Hughes' portrayal of Gage was universally acclaimed" and that's not zero. The prod process "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" but opposition should always be expected in such cases because there are obvious alternatives to deletion, which are preferred per the policy WP:PRESERVE.
The nomination complains at the lack of explanation. It seems that they expect their rapid-fire, automated nominations to be responded to with elaborate explanations. Now, I did respond on the talk page and the most significant part of that was to post {{friendly search suggestions}}. These are not just there to look good; they are there to facilitate the searches which are required by WP:BEFORE, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." I naturally made such searches myself, was content with what I found, and a list of suitable sources will follow. It appears from these that Stephen King's works attract lots of literary criticism and these naturally go into detail about the major characters such as this. There is therefore ample scope to improve the article per our editing policy and so deletion is quite inappropriate.
  1. Inherited Haunts: Stephen King's Terrible Children
  2. Nightmare on Sesame Street: or, the self-possessed child
  3. The monster never dies": An analysis of the Gothic double in Stephen King's oeuvre
  4. Freaks: The Grotesque as Metaphor in the Works of Stephen King
  5. The Ghost of the Counterfeit Child
  6. Frankenstein's Monster: Hubris and Death in Stephen King's Oeuvre
  7. Utterances Connected with Social Criticism in Stephen King's PET SEMATARY
  8. Taking Stephen King Seriously
  9. Evil Children in the Popular Imagination
  10. Monsters and Mayhem: Physical and Moral Survival in Stephen King's Universe
  11. Stephen King: A Literary Companion
  12. Reading Stephen King: Issues of Censorship, Student Choice, and Popular Literature.
Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:ALLPLOT. Andrew Davidson's doing his typical "I Googled up these sources, and you can't prove I didn't read them; maybe I read them and just don't understand Wikipedia policy" schtick shouldn't really be allowed to affect this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is clearly the case, just looking at a few of these. This one,for example, is a student thesis in which Gage is only mentioned in a footnote summarizing the plot of the book, this one is nothing but a brief plot summary as is this one, and this one mentions the character in exactly two sentences, and barely even talks about the character in those sentences. This seems to just be the typical strategy of flooding the AFD with supposed sources, without actually providing the authorship or a link to them, in the hopes that no one does the work to track them down and analyze them for the poor sources they are.Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are none so blind as those that will not see". Naming the character in two places is evidence of notability, not a lack of it. Appearing a footnote in a scholary thesis is evidence of notability, not the contrary. The coverage in the Literary Companion is a separate entry for the character which mainly focusses on its cameos in other works, rather than simply recapitulating the plot. These are all valid sources for various aspects of the article and their existence demonstrates that the character has been noticed and written about and so we are able to cover it without OR. There are lots more sources like this and, in providing a selection, I have gone way beyond what is required of me. The onus in this matter is on the nominator to make such searches as they are the person trying to make a case that no-one has noticed this subject. They have failed to provide any evidence; have misrepresented the facts of the matter and the deletionist claque isn't any better. Andrew D. (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naming the character in two places is evidence of notability, not a lack of it." Really? Because our guideline on notability states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", and I don't know how you can even pretend to claim that the two sentences present in the article in question is anything but the definition of trivial. As are the mentions in all of the other sources I actually bothered to look at. Does anyone really believe that mentioning two "cameos" of the character, one of which is not even of the character but of a shoe, and the other one is clearly stated in the same book to not even be the same character is "significant coverage"? Proving that the character's name comes up when you google it does nothing to indicate any notability of the character separate from their already-present coverage in the main article on the book, or why it needs to have a separate article from the already substantial coverage in the main article on the book. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These details are significant coverage in my view. They corroborate specific facts and that's what we require of citations. To call this "trivial" is just opinionated prejudice; assuming the thing that you're trying to prove. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not clearly the case. There's clearly some history here that I'm not privy to...
    I did my own Google Scholar search, and I will vouch for at least two of the above articles. The fact that there are so many supports the fact that they WP:NEXIST regardless of the state of the article.
    2. Nightmare on Sesame Street - Gage is covered extensively and believed to represent or fight against becoming brain-dead youth that watch too much TV.
    6. Frankenstein's Monster: Hubris and Death in Stephen King's Oeuvre - Gage is compared throughout the article to Frankenstein's monster (as the title suggests)
    I just don't want to do more than that, and two equates to multiple sources. -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Until actually proven, it can be assumed none of the above have any merit as sources, as it would be easy to show two or three have significant coverage. By throwing twelve items without any context, it shows no actual thought went into it. TTN (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love your comment. Within less than two minutes you nominated four articles for deletion 1 2 3 4. If anything, it shows no actual thought went into it. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether I spend 10 minutes on each article or no time at all, I don't think it would really matter to you. We seem to have completely contrary mindsets, so I doubt you'd much agree with me on anything regardless. TTN (talk)
  • I've supported a number of your nominations, but the sheer volume can be slightly frustrating when there is almost no context as to why something is failing GNG or what you did WP:BEFORE nominating it or coming to that conclusion. Seeing four nominations in less than two minutes doesn't build confidence that due diligence is being carried out is all I think MrCleanOut is saying. More context in nominations can help reduce workload on other reviewers and not alienate them into thinking, "Great. Here's another folder thrown on my desk that I need to do the legwork for since this two-word Post-it doesn't really tell me how it got here. How did I get stuck with this?" That's right, I wikilinked it -2pou (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this "proven" otherwise. See comment above highlighting the merit of two of the sources. At least two sources are extremely GNG worthy (and available for free). -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fictional character except within the context of the work, which can be explained on the work's page. A redirect isn't required since Gage Creed already is a redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ALLPLOT. This isn't a fandom wiki like you get for in-unverse characters for the Stephen King books, Star Wars, etc. There's no justification for keep based in the article or this AfD so far due to lack of in-depth sources that would be more focused on the book article. I was originally going to say redirect, but as Zxcvbnm points out, Gage Creed can handle that, and there's no need to use this as a search term. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think All Plot should be a basis for improving the article, not deleting it. As I have stated below, this article is only a month old-2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew D. The article has 7 references. A GSearch for ["Gage Creed" Stephen King] turns up 30 hits. This completely invalidates the imprecise and false delete rationale: Zero real world notability. The article may be poorly written at present, but there is ample scope to improve it as per WP:ATD which is Wikipedia POLICY. Deletion is inappropriate. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or put in Draft Onel I understand you're acting in good faith, but all these character AFD seem misguided to me in this case, the fact that these character articles are in poor shape does not mean they are all non-notable. King's works have had an insane amount of coverage and other users have already demonstarated that they can find several related to this character.★Trekker (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pet Sematary, zero notability independent of the plot of the book. Andrew's latest copying of the top Google hits certainly establishes notability of this work and its author, but not the need for a separate article for its characters. These passing mentions are such a pathetic argument that merely proves that there isn't substantive coverage of this character in particular. Reywas92Talk 01:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draftspace. Updated to keep below Another one turned into a redirect on the same day it was created. I guess I could see it being stumbled upon and redirected, not knowing its age, and at least there was justifiable rationale provided.... There are just so many of these, that it looks like a witch hunt. Move it to a draft, and maybe it'll meet GNG when it's ready for the article space. -2pou (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew D.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since multiple sources establish notability. Several pointed out by Andrew D, and I have verified some. The article should be improved not deleted.  WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article. Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. -2pou (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gage_Creed_(character)&oldid=921120063"