Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Malik (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 keep. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Malik (character)[edit]

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

This article is about a character from a movie. Despite several requests via maintenance templates and talk page messages dating back to 2009, no references establishing the character's independent notability have been provided, which leads me to believe there are none . Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 09:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just "a" character? How about we better describe this character contextually. He's THE MAIN character in Slumdog Millionaire . It would seem sensible that this major character in this extremely notable film has been the recipient of analysis and commentary, and that a separate article on him would also seem sensible. Is the nominator's argument that because the article has not been improved that it cannot ever be? Did he look before stating that a lack of effort (by others) leads him to believe there are none "? We do not decide to toss a notable topic because no one's working on it right now. The AFD template gives poor results, so in looking further, I offer additional Find sources:

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

Which give us (even English) results in news and book sources. It would seem prudent to believe there is coverage in Hindi and other Indian and non-English languages.

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

Notability is not dependent upon sources being IN an article... it is dependent upon them being available, used or not, and AFD is not intended to "force" improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that because I have not been able to find any sources establishing any notability independent of the film itself, nor has anyone else provided them despite various people having asked in the last four years, then quite possibly such sources do not exist, and therefore the subject of this article is presumably non-notable. You've provided nothing but links to search engines; please identify the specific reliable sources you believe establish the independent importance of this character. Keep in mind that notability is not inherited; for the vast majority of films—even very popular ones—we do not, and should not, have separate articles on their characters, as it is rare for a character itself to attract a significant amount of dedicated critical analysis. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, and per guideline and your quoted essay, we are allowed instances where notability can be "inherited" if supported by proper sourcing. To quote: Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that." As this character IS the main character and focus of a majorly notable film, it is expected that discussion, analysis, and commentary about the character will naturally be in relationship to the film... as is conceded by the essay you quote. We would not expect to have discussion about this fictional character running for real-world public office or winning a real-world olympic medal. (chuckle). Fictional devices/characters may indeed be covered within Wikipedia. IE: James T. Kirk, Luke Skywalker Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a character that meets the general notability guidelines. In particular I quote, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." At the same time, the guidelines establish a presumption that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Obviously we do not create character articles for the main characters of every film just because reviews make more than trivial mentions about them. It is generally accepted that multiple characters can be covered within a film article. The question is what entails an article split in which we have a focus on the character, even if he or she only appears in one film. I think that the best gauge of that is retrospective (and usually academic) coverage because of the studied observations made. Slumdog Millionaire is most definitely a studied film (this being the latest such study). I've added an "Analysis" starter section that helps indicate that Jamal is a key character, not just one of several, in this well-studied film. There will be redundancy, to be sure. I can foresee an Analysis of Slumdog Millionaire sub-article, and Jamal will inevitably be covered in that scope. I think that in addition to that, it is also possible to have a character-centric scope with related such observations. Other examples: Tony Montana was posted for AfD but was kept with ease. Buffalo Bill (character) is a secondary character that nonetheless had worthwhile observations (that I added to rescue that article from AfD). There is also T-X, for which there was a merge discussion, but I believe I provided adequate evidence (that surprised even me) that indicated the potential of a stand-alone article. I think that potential also exists here; we can compile observations about this character, and I've added a section to indicate that. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for these very sensible observations, and for providing some evidence of the sort I had tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to uncover myself. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course the in one sense character in a film has notability because of the film, since he wouldn't exist otherwise. but it is enough that he ve discussed substantially --and he has, for most of the discussions of the film have centered around him.. The leading character in a famous film centered around him will be discussed sufficiently that they are notable. Of course the discussions will be in the context of the film, but they will be about the character. I do not think the application of the gng to such elements of fiction helpful--better is the common sense that the pricipal charaxters of a very famous films are notable . DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Some characters will be open to interpretation, analysis and discussion, and some won't and will just be mentioned in passing because they're part of the plot but won't receive significant coverage. WP:GNG is fine as it is, in that its requirements are not prohibitive for characters to have articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No subject is inherently notable, but a character can be notable for being in a notable film. Invariably you will simply end up with two notable subjects, the film and the character; it does not have to be one or the other. Furthermore, WP:BEFORE should have been the nomination rationale, not an assumption about WP:HEY or WP:MUST. I agree the burden is on the editors to provide sources, but it's also on the community to decide whether a subject has notability. Mkdw ^talk 23:16, 20 May 2013 (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.