Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saleem Sinai

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. StarM 23:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Sinai[edit]

This fictional character stub is for the central character of what is clearly a notable book. However, it makes no claims of, or references supporting, independent notability, such as significant coverage in any sources. Moreover, as detailed below, it fails all the various actual and proposed criteria for inclusion as an element of fiction per policies and what must be described as a very inclusionist essay.

According to the notability criteria for books, "while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character … from the book". Exceptions exist where the subject character is independently notable, or where relevant information on the character is too long to include in the main article. This logic specifically (and rightly) makes character stubs subject to deletion if they do not argue for the existence of significance or an onslaught of additional information. Furthermore, it makes inapposite reasoning by analogy to other characters having dedicated articles that meet either of those criteria.

These arguments are detailed further in the essay on notability of fiction. While not policy, this essay has some commonsense amplifications on the above policy which are probative in this case. Under the heading of "Elements of fiction", it notes that "characters … are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of [them] in reliable secondary sources, [such as] secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work. Reputable academic studies of individual elements may also demonstrate notability." While some of these may be true of the subject article, such factors have not actually been asserted.

Further, the essay points out that "even where an element or group of elements is notable, it may be more appropriate to include the information in an article on the work itself if the resulting article would be very short, with little or no likelihood of expansion." No liklelihood has been asserted or demonstrated for the subject article. (This may be contrasted with articles on characters such as Yossarian, Tom Sawyer, etc.) The essay provides advice applicable to this sort of situation, suggesting that, where the subject would not provide an article of sufficient length, or is of "unproven notability, editors should seek to retain the information where it can improve the encyclopedia … [such as in] the main article on the work of fiction."

Any material information should be placed in the main article where people may expect to find it, and this stub, adding no value to the interested reader, should be deleted. Bongomatic (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional Delete~~ If I !vote delete, do you promise not to write an essay for a rationale ever again? ;) I agree with your rationale, that the character has no established notability outside the work, nor have they entered "popular culture" the way Tom Sawyer has. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirectNow that I think about it, merge and redirect is really the best solution. The article can be moved over the redirect once there is enough material. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'll have to change your vote to "Keep", as I know that even if I enter the twelve-step program for recovering over-rationalizing-essayists, I will relapse. Bongomatic (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that. You can withdraw, and my current !vote wouldn't prevent that in good faith, and I wouldn't complain. I still say merge/redirect for now. If tomorrow/next week/next year, there is enough, then fine. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not an expert on the rules, but this is the main character in a Booker prizing winning novel that has led a rennaisance in English language fiction from the Indian subcontinent. This is also the main character from the most highly acclaimed of Nobel Prize winning author Salman Rushdie's books. He's a fascinating character and I think he deserves his own article. I believe he's notable and can be compared to other lead characters such as John Galt or Pip who I suspect have their own articles. I suggest some references be found and perhaps a citations needed tag be added to the article page until that can be done? This is one of the most discussed and written about books of our times. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you expand the article to include the evidence of notability you suggests exists, I will do a non-admin speedy keep close of this AfD. But Wikipedia articles don't satisfy the notability requirement based on what might be true. Bongomatic (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the character's description in the main article has an expand tag, and the current character article is little more than a stub. The one or two extra sentences in the character article would be better off in the main article. If the character article (this afd) had substantial content or could demonstrate that it *can* be expanded, it might be a little easier to understand why it needs a separate article. As it is now, this article provides less context than the main article, and actually diminishes the understanding of the character. Whatever the policies, this doesn't improve Wikipedia. Changing this article to a redirect and merge in the couple of extra sentences would be a better solution, although you don't need an AFD to do that. In short, it would be better (in my opinion) to change this to a redirect to the main article, then merge any extra info. When and if the character information is big enough to warrant an article, then change the redirect to an article. It isn't about "deserve", it is about providing the best contexts for the content, which is within the article at this time. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some citations (some are better than others I'll admit) and content. This is a definite keep. One of the great characters in modern fiction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that information on the character is not appropriate for WP, simply that given (a) the fact that most people will look for information on a character in a book under the book's article; and (b) there is no reason to think that there is a need for an article of such great length that the information cannot comfortably be fit into the book's article. It simply isn't a discussion about whether this is a central character in an important book (which I don't think is the subject of dispute). Bongo matic 03:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The short version: It would be best to put more character info into the book article, and change the character article (this one) into a redirect for now. Once there is enough information about the charcter to make a full article, then it is just moved over. This is standard procedure. It is actually better for the articles, as it provides better context for the character and the book. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character is VERY notable and has had an enormous amount written about him. It was a snap to find legitimate sources. I'll work on the article (and the section in the parent text. Respectfully ask for a thie AfD to be withdrawn or a move to keep. Saleem deserves his own article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However notable the character, and however much has been written about him, a two paragraph article about the character is better suited for inclusion in the main article. Expanding the article with plot summaries and other redundant or extraneous information (as has been done in a number of other principal character articles) will moot the argument for inclusion in the main article, but will ill-serve the reader. If you believe that a lengthy article on this subject is in fact warranted, then I suggest you write it. If you finish before this AfD discussion is complete, I'm sure the conclusion will be to your satisfaction. If not, recreate the article when it is complete and (if it's a good article that demonstrates the notability of the subject and is too long for inclusion in the main article), it is unlikely to be re-subjected to the AfD process. Bongo matic 04:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the goalposts are moving on me. I was asked to establish notability. I did so with an AP story and a Library link to numerous stories including several that are focused on this character. There are lots of character studies on Saleem Sinai. There are lots of studies and articles comparing him to the lead characters in other masterworks. This book is a classic and it's going to be around for a long time. I'm sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I think there is notability and interest to support an article on the character himself, the lead character in the most famous Indian novel of all times. If the votes are there to support a deletion, then I certainly respect that decision. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undertstand the confusion. For myself, I shouldn't have said delete to start with (was too hasty), as the norm is never to delete and instead to merge and redirect if the notability or expansion is limited. My rationale is that the main article itself is already tagged as needing expansion of the character section. It is just my opinion that in these cases that you should combine them, focus on developing the character info *in* the article, and if it gets "informative" enough, fine, create the article. What drives my opinion on this is the idea that if someone searches for "Saleem Sinai" right now, would they be better served by going to this article, or going to the subsection of the main article? At this time, I think it is clear that the article provides much more context. My original point still stands, that if the character was like Tom Sawyer, I could easily see how the article could be expanded, as the character is bigger than the book and has entered popular culture in many ways. Expansion possibilities aren't obvious here, so letting it develop with no prejudice to move back over the redirect seems to be the best for both the character and wikipedia. imo. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the original nomination stated "Further, the essay points out that 'even where an element or group of elements is notable, it may be more appropriate to include the information in an article on the work itself if the resulting article would be very short, with little or no likelihood of expansion.' No liklelihood has been asserted or demonstrated for the subject article." Bongo matic 04:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly. Central character of very famous novel. 419 gbooks hits; 348 gscholar hits including Saleem Sinai: The Twentieth Century Tristam Shandy!? ; 140 gnews hits including One more bouquet for Saleem Sinai. Scope for a great deal of expansion based on such sources. And ChildofMidnight has very substantially expanded it based on such sources. John Z (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anti-fictionalism run amok. This is the central character of one of the most famous books of the 20th century--a book with not just literary, but political significance. There's an large and accumulating amount of criticism on the novel , of which a good deal is on the character, both in itself, as compared to other of Rushdie's characters, and as relevant to the author himself--and the article shows it. One good thing about this nomination--perhaps it will make it plain where the tendency is going. The need to adjust the wording of policy to reality should now be evident: Wikipedia coverage of notable fiction should be based upon thorough coverage of plot, characters, publication and reception, in that order of importance. As for some minor objections, the character certainly has entered world wide popular culture--it doesn't have to do so to such as an extent as Tom Sawyer, which has over a century of lead time; unless we are to have a very small encyclopedia, notable is a much wider concept than 'famous". And the reason for separate articles for at least the most important characters of the most important fiction, is to make sure that key aspects are not "overlooked" and deleted under the pretext of editing. (It shouldn't have to be necessary to have that reason, but anyone who has been following these discussions knows very well that it is necessary--trace any of the merge closures which have been implemented as redirects; let's be realistic for once. Probably we do have to change the wording of some guidelines to match that reality.) DGG (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about keeping "anti-fictionalism run amok"? What ever happened to "I disagree with the gentleman from North Carolina"? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now after excellent save The more I look into this, the more notable it does become, in all honesty. ChildofMidnight has done a great job, and in this case, enough to pass WP:HEY. In general, I lean slightly against articles on fictional characters unless the notability is clear established, but I don't think this is a bad thing, nor do I think it is against the current guidelines. Before his efforts, I would still have said merge and redirect. As it is now, KEEP is the only solution. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:02, 8 November 2008 (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.