Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrcella Baratheon

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. "You know nothing Jon Snow". There is clearly no consensus to delete this bundle. See also WP:TRAINWRECK. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myrcella Baratheon[edit]

[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)

A minor character in the novels and TV series. The character was not also widely recognized. The article itself is consisted of plot summaries and is referenced to original sources. The subject doesn't seem to be notable. We have a list that covers the characters from this franchise: List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. This article and the ones below could be redirected if the users were to oppose deletion. Keivan.f^Talk 23:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of them seem to be meeting the notability criteria that we have for such topics. They are minor characters as well and their articles only consist of plot summaries. It's also important to remember that just because the actors are notable, that doesn't mean that the characters are notable as well:

Support redirects, as redirects to "List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters" would be helpful. Per WP:PLOT, articles shouldn't be plot only summaries, which these articles are almost entirely made up off (there are small sections that do go into more out-universe detail, but not much). I will change my mind if reliable sources can be provided to increase "production", "critical reception" etc. sections. Anything that isn't plot summary, basically. Would also support doing the same for Bronn (character), as this article has the same problems. --Ted Edwards 00:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would support Hodor (character) (created only in March), Robert Baratheon, Theon Greyjoy, Tywin Lannister, Melisandre, and Oberyn Martell becoming redirects, because they are also almost completely plot summary. There might be more articles like this, but a.t.m. I don't have time to check. Again, will stop supporting doing this if sections other the plot sections are expanded on. --Ted Edwards 00:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see someone can improve this article to make it more encyclopedic like removing too much plot and adding "production", "critical reception" per above. Otherwise, Redirect to List_of_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire_characters#House_Baratheon. Fandom and awoiaf.westeros.org are better sites to provide those information and they already have much more detailed information about this character. -- 94rain ^Talk 01:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TedEdwards: - given that so many articles are being nominated for deletion at once, how can we expect editors to fix them all quickly? We all have limited time on this website, we should be reasonable here. Unless we redirect without stopping a potential recreation of a proper article. starship .paint (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I would recommend listing reliable, independent, secondary sources on each talk page to prove the notability or lack of for each article. Then the ones with a decent amount of these sources can be kept, and the ones without a decent amount should be turned to redirects. To be "independent", this means sources like critics reviews, character analysis by scholars etc, not interviews with the actor who plays that character or of the like. Alternatively, I could create a subpage in my userspace to list sources. I'm hoping finding sources will not take too much time away from editors. --Ted Edwards 16:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I radically disagree. Several of these characters are extremely important and relevant ones throughout the series. To suggest that major characters like Tywin, Theon, Davos, Melisandre, Oberyn, Tormund, the Mountain, Olenna, etc. all should have their pages deleted seems like madness. I could maybe see Myrcella, Rickon, and Gilly's pages go down, but I wouldn't necessarily advocate for it. If anything, a few more pages should go up in light of the recent season, like for Grey Worm, Qyburn and Euron, who were all major players the last couple of seasons. There are also a few other major supporting characters like Pycelle, Beric, and others that should have had their pages created long ago. If you see issues with pages being little more than plot summary, then add to them! Game of Thrones is the biggest television show of all time and we should be seeking to enrich and expand its content, not cut it down for no reason. I'm currently working on these projects and will seek to expand those pages that seem lacking by adding reception, production, etc. sections. I would love any and all assistance in this regard! TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think they are important doesn't mean that they are actually notable. Yes, they appeared in major scenes but they are not central figures in the story. Some of them are not even POV characters in the books, meaning that you never see a chapter being told by them throughout the story. But I still refrained from nominating pages such as Tywin Lannister and Oberyn Martell because they played a more prominent role in the TV series. The others should either be deleted or redirected. Keivan.f^Talk 06:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatClockwyrm: and Keivan.f (plus all users generally). In my argument for deletion, I mentioned WP:PLOT, arguing that if articles can't be expanded in a way so they are not almost entirely plot summary, they should turned into redirects. So what I propose is that for all ASoIaF/GoT character articles, unless they do have more than a few lines of critical reception, real-world influence etc, we should see what secondary sources we can find, and if we can't (as they may not be enough), they will have to be turned to redirects. So I reckon I'm half agreeing with TheGreatClockwyrm, improvement would be better than turning to redirects and I'm grateful for their promise to improve articles, but the priority is making sure the character articles that we've got are good enough to stay, not create more ones, and I will also say that which articles are kept/made redirects must be based on real-world notability, not in-show notability. Some character articles are great (e.g. Tyrion Lannister and Jon Snow (character), which are good articles, with some more articles that are definitely good enough to stay e.g. Daenerys Targaryen and Cersei Lannister) as they have good coverage of real-world stuff. However other articles need improvement or turned to redirects as they are almost completely plot summary, even ones like Arya Stark (here I reckon that improvement will definitely be possible; I'm very much not advocating deletion here). By the way Keivan, I just want to check you saw this comment from me, which suggested some articles that need improvement or turning to redirects. You've disagreed on at least two articles I mentioned, but I'm more confident you would agree on Hodor (character) etc. --Ted Edwards 17:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. The article about Hodor needs to go as well. As you mentioned above, some characters like Arya Stark are notable enough for us to look for sources and write an article based on real world material. But some like Gilly, Gendry and Ygritte are not among the universally known characters and I'm not sure how we could improve them even if we were determined to do so. I will be glad to work on the ones that I believe can be improved. Keivan.f^Talk 17:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you put a gun to my head and asked for articles to redirect, I wouldn't lose any sleep for Myrcella, Rickon, and Gilly. Personally I'd be squeamish about High Sparrow, Hodor, Viserys, Ygritte, and Gendry but I understand why some would want them to go. I would be strongly against the removal of others listed here. My other point is that I strongly believe that there are six or seven characters that should have articles and for which there is enough content to make good articles with all of these criteria you're talking about: Grey Worm, Euron Greyjoy, Asha Greyjoy, Qyburn, Beric Dondarrion, Barristan Selmy, and Grand Maester Pycelle. I've been very busy the past few days and haven't been able to get up to all these things I'm promising, but say if we were to get some redirects going and shore up these other secondary character articles, I would like to get to work constructing a couple of these in the meantime.TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently working on standardizing the formats of each character page and giving them more robust headers where I can. Once I am done standardizing I'm gonna go in and see what more I can add to them. I already did some work on Ramsay Bolton and Stannis Baratheon and I hope to do more. In the meantime I'd say Rickon, Myrcella, and Gilly could probably be redirects but I would be against any others for the time being.TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with simply deleting all these articles being deemed as not notable or significant enough (I'm not sure if I'm detecting good enough rationale to do so). I would argue that Game of Thrones is one of the biggest media properties on Earth alongside stuff like the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Star Wars and such. It's got a large and acclaimed cast of characters and while I'm obviously not gonna advocate for making a page for, say, Areo Hotah, I think we should preserve most of these pages and also make a couple more for significant characters like Grey Worm, Euron, Qyburn, etc. In the mean time, our primary goal should be to improve those articles for major characters that need more content. However, I would advocate strongly against removing any pages right now until we can improve them (in the very least, I don't agree with removing any page aside from the three I already mentioned, and certainly not Hodor! He's a very recognizable and quoted part of the show and his death episode is considered one of the most iconic and best). We have hundreds of pages on Wikipedia right now for ficional television characters and so it seems backwards to start a pruning process with the biggest of them all. Regardless, you'll be seeing me around doing what I can to improve things. My vote would be that if we HAVE to nix things, Rickon, Myrcella, and Gilly are the places to start, but I would be strongly against anything beyond that for the time being. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirects or subsections of list of characters per Ted Edwards. We have to separate our bias of perceived notability. Just because we, as viewers, think they're notable, doesn't mean they are universally. I'm sure plenty of people thought that the minor characters of the Epic of Gilgamesh were notable too. Jamgoodman (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Oppose: I object to the mass deletion listing. Yes Myrcella is a cypher, but the Olenna Tyrell article, for example, has 20+ citations and covers more than just plot. The performer was also nominated for several Emmy awards. Missandei and even Rickon Stark are well-sourced in a manner I believe asserts their notability. I have yet to examine all of the articles on this list, but though the nominator has decided who he thinks are minor characters, we need to examine each article on a case-by-case basis. Obviously List of Game of Thrones characters and List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters exist, so redirecting some of these will be easy, but in that case I ask that the redirects not be done lazily, and that sourced notable info (like major awards, controversy, and notable press coverage) be moved to the list entry if it's not already there.— TAnthony^Talk 18:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment expressed here and move that we remove these deletion consideration tags for the time being and instead work on improving extant articles. I also agree that even the smaller articles, like Rickon and Gilly, seem very well constructed and sourced. After a second review I believe that only Myrcella Baratheon seems to be one most lacking and for a minor character. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make the comment, in addition to my other comments, that all Wikipedia articles should ideally meet notability guidelines; this page notes the section "Article content does not determine notability" that Wikipedia articles do not decide whether a subject is notable or not, and so real-world impact must be assessed. To meet the GNG, articles must be covered by secondary sources independent of the topic. This is why I believe an article such as Rickon Stark is not notable, as all the sources that refer to non-plot details are interviews by Art Parkinson (so not independent of the topic). --Ted Edwards 22:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am never a fan of these large nominations (that is just my opinion, and I understand why editors may disagree). I believe it would be better to nominate each character separately to allow editors the time and opportunity to check if there are enough sources for an independent article. For instance, I remember there was quite a bit of discussion on Missandei about her ultimate fate on the show and her status as one of the few women of color present on the show. I agree that some of these characters (like Myrcella and Rickon) appear better suited for a redirect to the list, but I feel others may warrant further discussion. For clarity, I am not saying that Missandei has enough notability for a separate article (as I honestly have not looked into this case), but recent coverage on the character does raise some points of potential at least to me. Tl;dr: I think this should be handled with individual nominations to best gauge the notability of each individual character. It is a good discussion so I do not mean to fault the nominator at all. It is important to bring these kinds of things up. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I put them together was based on the fact that they share almost the exact same issues. So instead of having a discussion spread over multiple pages, I thought it would be better to discuss it in one specific place. Keivan.f^Talk 16:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that. I just think that individual nominations would give editors more time to actually look into the notability of each article. The above list proposed for deletion is quite long and might discourage that in favor of more general comments. Again, as I said in my original message, it is just my preference, and I can understand why it was done this way. I just do not find it to be the most constructive route. Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view: characters to be kept: Olenna, Renly, Tormund, Missandei, Davos, Bronn, Tommen, Robert, Theon, Tywin, Melisandre. Characters deserving of articles: Grey Worm, Euron. Some for longevity leading to presence, some for being crucial for the plot of kings and manipulators. Characters for redirects: Myrcella, Rickon, Viserys, Ygritte, Roose, Gregor Clegane, Gendry, Gilly, Daario, Ellaria, Sparrow, Hodor, Oberyn, and should stay a redirect: Qyburn. For ultimately playing a small part. starship .paint (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan.f will probably agree when I say that these character articles have been around for awhile with little improvement. I think we will be able to agree that most of these should be redirected for now, and the ones left alone should be given a reasonable amount of time to be improved. But though we can decide who we think is deserving of an article, it all comes down to who has the notable sources asserting notability, not who was more important in the story. It's been a few years since I actively researched ASOIAF characters, but I remember having trouble finding decent coverage for even Jaime and Cersei. I'm sure there is plenty out there now, but like, probably not for a character like Tommen. That said, if no one makes an effort to bring the "kept" character articles up to speed (which is likely), they should be redirected pending improvement in the future.— TAnthony^Talk 14:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the sentiment that we will 'be able to agree that most of these should be redirected for now'. I do not think that we should delete the majority of these pages listed and this entire discussion seems to hinge on the personal opinions of the user who started it. Issues with extant pages should firstly be resolved by seeking to improve them, not ripping down half of the cast and placing them in a redirect.TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not based on my opinion. It's based on the issues that these articles have and none of them have been resolved over the past few years. So, set your bias aside and try to show that these articles can be improved in order to prove your point, because merely stating that they are important will not make them notable. Keivan.f^Talk 16:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC [1] quotes Looker's analysis of 15 male, and 15 female characters' lines from season 1-7 - Theon, Davos, Bronn are high for second-tier characters. Robb, Sandor, Tywin, Eddard, Stannis are close together. Note: several characters are missing from this analysis. starship .paint (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content threshold is not which characters appear/speak more or are more important to the story/series, it is based on real-world notability. This is established by external, reliable sources that discuss/analyze the characters in a meaningful way. Most of these character articles have been created and redirected before. I'm suggesting redirecting so that articles can be easily recreated if and when someone decides to improve them. But some of these have literally been tagged for improvement for years. Some do not meet our criteria and there doesn't seem to be a troop of editors willing to do what really needs to be done (including myself) in a timely manner, so in the interim they should be redirects.— TAnthony^Talk 17:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be less opposed to redirects that are without prejudice to recreation. Redirecting on the grounds of current quality rather than notability. starship .paint (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of them - most of these need improving and not deleting. The only ones that are borderline not notable are Myrcella, Gilly and Rickon. I'm shocked that Davos and Olenna are up for deletion. Spiderone 18:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the other users suggested that we redirect them to the list of characters we have for this series. That way, in the future, users can easily restore the page with meaningful material. By the way, since you mentioned Davos and Olenna, I would like to ask: what impact did these two characters have on the popular culture and in real world? Basically none. Davos, for example, is not even notable compared to characters like Tyrion and Jon. So please try to avoid being biased. Just because a character appears a lot in the story, doesn't mean that he is actually notable on a world-wide scale. Keivan.f^Talk 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I too share a concern about considering these articles en masse. It would be better to decide on more of a case-by-case basis. Calidum 20:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of them - I'm shocked Davos, Tormund, Olenna, and Bronn are nominated. Bad calls by nominator. Decide rest case-by-case. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of them - Davos jumps out as being very out of place on this list; he is a significant PoV for books 2, 3 and 5, and appears in every show Season after 2. Many of the others are justifiably nominated, being only minor characters in the books, and not being hugely significant in the show. Oberyn Martell is an example of this, appearing only very briefly in both. Roose and the High Sparrow should also probably be kept, but the rest do not serve much purpose. 2A02:C7F:C641:5A00:1D5E:F8F1:D8C8:5F1B (talk) 09:34, 26 May 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.