Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrcella Baratheon (2nd nomination)

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. OK, having lots of readers is not a reason to keep an article under notability guidelines. The question of whether GNG is met isn't so clear, as most of the sources are stated to be plot summaries rather than detailed analysis and there is the - somewhat vague - concern about non-independent sources raised. A merger was also discussed, but there does not appear to be a clear consensus either pro ("usual practice for minor characters") or con ("target is too long"). My sense is that while the keep arguments probably out-weigh the delete ones owing to several uncontested sources, the merge/redirect or no case would need a dedicated discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myrcella Baratheon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Myrcella Baratheon (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)

XFD created on behalf of User:Aoba47. No reason provided at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Myrcella_Baratheon but I have asked User to add the reason to this AFD.

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: The above character does not appear to have enough independent coverage from third-party, reliable sources to warrant a separate article or fulfill WP:GNG. I would not opposed to a redirect to the List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters list where an entry for the character already exists. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Also, no independent coverage of the subject exists, and she played a pretty minor role in the TV series and is not a POV character in the books either. The only other option would be to redirect it to the list of characters. Keivan.fTalk 02:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is easy to find sources which discuss the topic in detail such as The gruesome Game of Thrones death viewers were never shown or Why Myrcella Baratheon Was Recast. The subject therefore passes WP:GNG and our policy WP:PRESERVE applies. Note also that the page gets substantial readership – up to 5000 per day – and, as its title is quite distinctive, this demonstrates a significant level of interest which is best satisfied with a separate page. Andrew D. (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that those two sources alone are enough to establish enough notability for a separate article. The information on her recasting and death scene could easily be sourced and contained within her entry in the list. Further sources would need to be cited to support notability. The character's "distinctive" name is not relevant to the conversation, and page views do not support notability. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can find further sources though, I would be more than happy to look at them. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters Very little can be said about this minor character except plot info. The recasting problem is not unique to to this character. Prior attempts to discuss the matter have not gone anywhere.[1] The argument that the topic deserves its own article because of the character's unusual name does not even merit a response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the article title and character's name is unique and distinctive. All those many thousands of readers were therefore looking for this particular subject, not some namesake or other topic. Why should we deny them and retrict readership to admins? Andrew D. (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A unique and distinctive name is not a reason why a character should have a separate article. Neither is page views. It should boil down to is there a significant amount of coverage on the character and I personally do not believe that is not the case. I can only see a limited amount, and it would be more beneficial for you to locate more sources from third-party, reliable sources to support your keep argument. Aoba47 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has had 165,806 views in the past 90 days. Probably far more popular before the character was killed off. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, but 99% of the people coming to it just read entertainment articles. Anyway, the general notability guidelines are technically met with the significant coverage found in reliable sources provided. Dream Focus 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page views is not a part of WP:GNG and not a strong argument to keep an article. I am not arguing against entertainment articles as I only work with those types of articles with my own projects. The "significant coverage" has not been met, as I can currently only see a limited coverage that justifies the character having an entry on the character list and not a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for all my responses. I will stay out of the conversation and let other editors discuss this. Thank you to everyone who has participated so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. Even the few reliable sources that discuss the character are brief, don't go much beyond plot, and even mention within them what a minor character it was. The character therefore does not have the significant coverage needed to have a standalone article. However, the character does have an entry in the character list, which this should definitely be redirected to, and since that section is currently completely unsourced, those few, minor sources that are present in this article should be merged over. Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters as a non-independently-notable character but one that can merit mention in a list.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable character from a notable mainstream production. Enough Wikipedia readers turn up each day to show that this subject is important to readers. GNG is met by the existence of references. Esquire, Hello Magazine, Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, And passing mentions in Business Insider and many others. Lightburst (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of those references provide any information that could be used to expand this article beyond simple plot summary. The only one that provides more than a passing reference or a detailed recounting of the events of the show is Esquire, which is wrong to take an unreliable book narrator's statement that she had her ear cut off as plain fact -- there is almost no "word of god" in ASOIAF. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FloNight: Please see WP:PERX. You need to provide your own rationale, rather than just piggy-backing on another editor whose argument was just waiting to be rebutted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Our readers are interested in it. "This article has had 165,806 views in the past 90 days." To update it 157,197 from today's date.
  1. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrcella Baratheon. The "train wreck" continues
  2. WP:NEXIST covers it.
  3. WP:Sigcov in multiple WP:RS. A seminal character from a notable mainstream production. Reader views of this article demonstrates enough Wikipedia readers turn up each day to show its immportance. GNG is met by the existence of references: Miller, Matt. "Why Game of Thrones Actually Made This Key Death Less Violent". Esquire., Griffiths, Emmy (June 13, 2017). "This Game of Thrones death was meant to be MUCH more gruesome". Hello Magazine. Myrcella Baratheon's death originally involved mashed up bananas!, Wigler, Josh (April 26, 2016). "'Game of Thrones': How Dorne Story Completely Diverges From the Books". Hollywood Reporter., and Richardson, Aimee; Day, Patriick Kevin (July 31, 2014). "Former 'Game of Thrones' actress makes 'Princess for Hire' video" (Video). Los Angeles Times. The actress who played Myrcella Baratheon on the HBO series "Game of Thrones" makes a joke out of her character's recent recasting., and Renfro, Kim (October 25, 2015). "These 5 'Game of Thrones' characters were recast — and you probably didn't even notice". Business Insider..
  4. No compliance with WP:Before. The list goes on, and if there had been compliance with WP:Before we would not be having this discussion. These sources were can (and should) be added to the article.
  5. The article is WP:Hey, and not what it was when it was proposed for this 2nd deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be too nitpicky, but WP:TRAINWRECK refers to "a nomination of a group of related pages for deletion or renaming which fails due to the disparate nature or worth of the pages" (as explicitly stated in Wikipedia policy) and only one article was nominated during this AfD so (The "train wreck" continues) is not applicable here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Only a single car is involved in this WP:AFD nomination; and yet it continues. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a train wreck at all according to Wikipedia policy, but thank you for the links. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thirteen, please do not edit other editors' talk page comments. If this were the first time such an incident had occurred with you I could take it as a good-faith mistake, but this kind of stuff keeps happening with you.[2][3] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any claim that WP:HEY applies when even a cursory glance at the article reveals it still consists exclusively of in-universe plot information is ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hijiri88 It is my practice to ignore you. You are toxic. We should not interact. But I will not ignore another false claim that I edited someone else's comments. Yhis iisd part of alarger pattern. I will not be accused of adoption by silence in the face of false accusation. Apparently I inadvertently did alter one of your comments in a nonimaterial way. It was unintentional. I apologize for that. So, retract it, or go to WP:ANI. Your ongoing and needless hostility should cease. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please retract the above You are toxic. personal attack, and do not respond again if you are not going to focus on content: you claimed that WP:HEY applied here, I pointed out that it didn't, and you responded with a needlessly off-topic rant about how you don't like me -- this is obviously inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Res ipsa loquitor. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Yada yada. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per the links provided by Lightburst. Coverage by reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What is in those sources other than in-universe plot information? I looked through them and couldn't find anything useful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was viewed numerous times during the past month because GoT had just ended in May 2019. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that GoT-related articles attract readers for a few months after the finale, but there's no guarantee that this will be the case after a year or so. Keivan.fTalk 03:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yeah, I've been trying not to point out the obvious fact that this show is extremely controversial at the moment and so virtually all articles related to it will have their view counts artificially inflated. I'm not sure if Andrew and the others were aware of this fact and actively chose to ignore it (in which case they should really be sanctioned for tendentious cherry-picking of data) or were not aware of it because they know absolutely nothing about the topic and were only !voting here because they saw an opportunity to undermine a Wikipedia process they don't like. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the views exists. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it won't in a year's time, and probably didn't a year ago. I don't know about you, but since about a month before Season 8 premiered I've had Game of Thrones related advertising showing up before every second or third YouTube video -- it makes sense that during this particular space of time all Game of Thrones articles on Wikipedia would have their view counts artificially inflated. I saw the same phenomenon with my List of Man'yōshū poets article, which on April 1 had about 50 times as many page views as the previous day despite being only very peripherally related to the announcement of the Reiwa era name. We can assume that all GOT character articles are similarly enjoying high page view counts at the moment for this reason alone (not actually a valid reason to keep the article regardless of the cause) -- it doesn't change the fact that this character's lack of real-world notability means nothing has been, or can be, written about her except in-universe plot information. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the views will still exist. That you don't like them is just your opinion. Your WP:Crystal Ball argument is without evidence. The timing here was due to the date the AFD was started. Claiming that there was manipulation of data or a conspiracy is unsupportable. And indeed, y8our invoking WP:ANI is aNOTHER hollow threat. And the beat goes on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the views will still exist. WP:CRYSTAL. Are you claiming that Myrcella will somehow be resurrected and get her own spinoff? That's the only way I can imagine her article not going the way of all the other GOT articles and leaking viewers over the coming months once the current Internet explosion dies down. And again, page views aren't a valid reason to keep the article, and neither you nor anyone else has addressed the lack of any third-party sources that allow us to discuss this topic in a real-world, non-plot-summary fashion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters, no true real world notability. Nothing much of value to merge to the list, but feel free to add any info there. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NTEMP applies to this article: once a subject is notable, it remains notable (even long after interest wanes). The main consideration regarding notability as it relates to the subject is found in the WP:NEXIST policy (reliable sources exist). I am unaware of any WP:POLICY regarding retaining an article based on the number of views the article may receive in the future. The article easily passes WP:SIGCOV with multiple WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment. I agree that the matter of page views is not really relevant to whether or not the subject is notable enough for its own article. The discussion should be kept entirely on whether or not the subject has received enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to justify an independent article. I did a before search before nominating the article, and I was uncertain if the sources that I had found were enough to warrant an article outside of the character's entry in the list so I wanted further feedback on it. I will respect whatever the consensus turns out to be, and thank you to everyone for their participation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have done a copy-edit to the article, and did two major changes. I removed the "Character description" section completely as it was just repeating plot summary already present in the "Storylines" section. I have also moved the sources from the lead and tried to show what information they represent. I am still uncertain on whether or not these sources are enough to establish notability for a completely separate article as opposed to the list entry. However, I wanted to try and make a more fair representation to anyone interested in participating in the discussion. I will of course respect whatever the consensus is. Aoba47 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 It is not appropriate for the nominator of an article to make wholesale changes (References and sections removed) while the AfD is in place. It is a demonstrable COI based on the fact that the nominator has proposed the article for deletion. Other editors are working to improve the article, it is best to let this process continue without making reductions based on your opinion. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to better integrate the sources into the actual article and represent their information for editors who would like to get involved in this discussion. Before, they were all just clumped together in the lead for no apparent reason. I did not remove any references as you erroneously claim, and I fail to see how it is a conflict of interest when I am genuinely trying to make information clearer for this discussion and editors to form their own opinion on whether or not said information is enough to form notability for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the message and the links. I personally believe the links in the article and the ones you have provided above are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. @Victoriaearle: Should I request for the AfD to be withdrawn to the change in my personal opinion or should it be left open until a consensus has been reached has there are several redirect/merge votes? Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My advice would be to just let it run its course. I literally spent five minutes on this, didn't look in the g-news archives where there might be more to be found, so I'd say wait and see what other people come up with and let the closing admin make a determination. Personally I'd oppose a merge to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters, which is overly long and does seem to lack reliable sourcing. In my view this character, Jaime & Cersei's daughter, who does get quite a lot of ink in the books, has reliable sourcing, is able to stand on its own. Victoria (tk) 20:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I am not sure how I missed the links during my before search, but I am grateful for the participation in the above discussion. Here are some additional ones that I have found: Zimbio, The Week, Screen Rant, Vulture.com, Vulture.com, and Bustle to help with the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We are all fallible. WP:AGF mistakes happen. That's why they put Delete keys on computers.
It is one of the beauties of the WP:Article rescue squad, which mobilizes other sets of eyes, including diverse backgrounds, and their research skills. I know there are detractors, but in my experience the focus is on article improvement, not mobilizing !votes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of ASoIaF characters - Probably resulting from being a minor character in both the books and TV series, I can't find any independent sources about the character, apart from a ScreenRant article about why Myrcella was recast (and failed to provide an answer) and a few articles about why her death wasn't that violent. This shows to me that the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG by a long shot. --TedEdwards 17:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the character list per above, per usual practice for minor characters. Everything about GoT gets coverage, this doesn't mean we need to become a fan wiki. We still select topics according to theid significance in the real world. Sandstein 05:43, 22 July 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/Myrcella_Baratheon_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=907342728"