Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandor Clegane

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandor Clegane[edit]

Sandor Clegane (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)

No sources verify the real-world notability WP:NFICT of this character. The sources in this artcile verify the notability of actor Rory McCann, but not of the character in itself. Sources which WP:V verify the general real-world notability WP:GNG of this character must neither be primary (like Martin's books or SPS by HBO). Therefore this character may be an unsuitable subject for a standalone article. Suitable sources which verify the GNG of this character must be secondary, reliable and have this character (not the actor) as the primary subject of a chapter or whole article. AadaamS (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I see dozens of scholarly references on even a cursory search using Google Scholar. What does WP:BEFORE mean, again? Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, my own cursory search resulted in WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the character. SC being mentioned in a scholarly work is not enough, SC must be the main topic for a significant amount of text. AadaamS (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:TRIVIALMENTION here [1], or for that matter here [2] or here [3]. Care to re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes indeed, a merge to the list article would of course be the best option, preferable to both keep & delete. Plus a redirect of course. Notable characters are figures like Superman or Sherlock Holmes. Those characters are generally notable. AadaamS (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is unsupported by Wikipedia notability policy. Perhaps you should not be nominating fictional elements for deletion, AadaamS. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, perhaps I should. AadaamS (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And last year, AadaamS, you had something like two deletions go through (and two redirects) on something like a dozen fictional element nominations? That's weak sauce, brah. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brah? Your underwear is your business but its content it should not be used for typing. A couple of those that didn't go through weren't demonstrated to live up to the GNG, like this one. Fanboys are many in enwp and they protect unworthy articles. AadaamS (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you nominated Serena van der Wooten for deletion even though there is a chapter on the character here [4] among many other reliable sources discussing the character. I get the feeling that you're not very good at this, and referring to SisterTwister and Deathlibrarian as "fanboys" (the Keep voters in the case you chose to cite) is just loopy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Serena van der Woodsen you mean. You are frequently using bullying and rudeness to get your way, but you will overcome those deficiencies given a lot of time. You, Deathlibrarian and SisterTwister all fail to comprehend what general notability means. It doesn't mean that a character is notable among GOT or GG fans, it means a character is notable to people who have never watched GOT or GG. AadaamS (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I'm not a GG (obviously) or GoT series fan. I'm not a fan of certain other books or shows, either, but when scholarly secondary literature exists on the characters, then those characters are notable, period. It's not a matter of whether you or I recognize (or can spell) their names, as non-fans; once again you have advanced a complete misunderstanding of the WP:GNG. WP:N is not reserved for the likes of Sherlock Holmes and Superman, which is literally what you argued above: it depends on whether or not WP:RS exist. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "and have this character (not the actor) as the primary subject of a chapter or whole article." is a horrid misreading of WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what Newimpartial found. AadaamS, it would be reasonable for you to withdraw the nomination at this point, as you've misunderstood notability policy and failed to find a couple of articles that would have met (or come close to having met!) your erroneously strict standards in the first place. If you're unconvinced, I can dig for more... Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this topic clearly passes GNG. Cjhard (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The article clearly passes GNG and is well sourced from many reliable sources. - AffeL (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure why this is has even been nominated for deletion as it clearly passes notability guidelines, most pertinently GNG. A lot of these character articles could be improved, yes, but that doesn't mean that they meet the guidelines for deletion. This article should be kept. Somethingwickedly (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should ultimately be merged, but keep for now I don't agree with the other "keep"s on the sources supposedly dug up by Newimpartial granting notability. Of the three they linked, one is a passing mention of the character being alive in season six of the TV show (no real-world notability or interesting information besides in-universe plot and what was then rumour and speculation), and one is a bare link to GBooks entry, which when searching the name "Sandor" doesn't bring up much other than passing mentions of the Hound in plot summaries. That leaves one source that may or may not demonstrate notability. At least two of the "keep"s had already demonstrated their heavy bias against deleting GOT character articles elsewhere: Jclemens' remark is problematic -- accusing someone of not understanding "the notability policy" and requesting that they withdraw their nomination on that basis is actually kinda funny; AffeL ... well, probably shouldn't even be allowed edit at this point -- he has been trolling and making personal attacks against anyone who questions the notability of these characters for over a month (if not much longer), has engaged quite rampantly in OR, edit-warring and BLP-violation, and his !vote here probably would have been cast whether or not there was any valid reason for it. But I think this article should be dealt with in the same mass AFD as the rest of them GOT character articles, and the nominator did miss the mark on this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in spite of the comment immediately above, the businessinsider source is directly concerned with the subject and speaks directly to notability: how much stronger documentation is there, for the notability of a fictional character, than businessinsider reporting on the character's survival in the TV adaptation? And the google book reference contains one essay which "addresses the topic significantly and in detail", which is the exact definition of significant coverage. Whatever Hijiri's issues might be about other editors who are participating in this discussion, those issues have nothing to do with the topic of this AfD, and indeed really ought to be struck from the record. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are showing a gross misunderstanding of GNG, in particular its requirement for significant coverage. The businessinsider source discussing the character's survival in the TV series is only useful for making the claim that, prior to the release of season 6, people were speculating that the character was still alive. GNG is about having enough sources to write an article, not having some arithmetic number of sources just to "demonstrate notability", and so no sources that include nothing but plot information -- which we are technically allowed cite to primary sources, as much as I might resent that -- can be used for GNG purposes. And, just like on the Tony Chang AFD, you are behaving disruptively by requesting that I strike my comment just because you don't like what I wrote -- indeed, your use of a passive verb makes it look like you are condoning/provoking vandalism of my comment by someone else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, I am asking you again, politely: please stop with the off-topic comments, and strike your own comments when they are off-topic. Nobody will do it for you.
The businessinsider source contributes to the notability of the fictional subject, by demonstrating that independent, reliable sources find the subject worthy of treatment. None of the sources I are limited to plot information - the businessinsider source, for example, discusses both the fan theories and reception of the plot developments, which is not "nothing but plot information" as you describe. The critical sources I provided are among many that provide interpretation and analysis of the character.
Please, Hijiri; stick to the facts, and stop the wall of text. Newimpartial (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your claiming that my comments to the effect that two of the other "keep" !votes should be treated with the appropriate weight (not "stricken", mind you) given how both users preemptively stated that they would likely oppose any AFD on a GOT character article is off-topic and should be ignored, but that your own comments about me to the exact same effect are valid is ... well, it's why I am frankly sick of interacting with you. Kindly leave me alone and stop bludgeoning every discussion in which you participate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't, and my contribution history bears that out. In this discussion, for example, I only responded to the nom and to you - who named me explicitly in your post, even though I was observing voluntary IBAN protocols so that we would not irritate each other any more. But it seems that you just can't help naming me or replying to my posts. Your WP:BLUDGEON looks Australian to me.
Do you really not see why it would be preferable to restrict your comments to editors' actual interventions in the AfD, rather than applying ad hominem arguments based on interactions elsewhere? That is all I want. Newimpartial (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You bludgeoned the hell out of the Tony Chang AFD, and here you would undoubtedly do the same if anyone were supporting the proposed deletion. In fact you are so desperate to bludgeon something that you are bludgeoning a "Keep for the moment" !voter. I have no reason to assume the rest of your contribution is any different.
And no, my comment is not ad hominem. Editors who should not even be here (they were allowed back from an indef block on condition that they cause no more disruption ever again, and they have caused no end of disruption in the last two months alone) would be one thing, if they hadn't preemptively stated that they would oppose any AFD on an article in this category, and Jclemens, while they certainly have a right to express their opinion, should be recognized as having already shown a poor understanding of GNG in relation to an article closely linked to this one in the very recent past.[5]
And then you showed the exact same poor understanding in this AFD, immediately above here. The simple fact is that sources that only include plot summary (and/or information irrelevant to this particular fictional character) cannot be used to write a standalone article, regardless of how "famous" the character might be and how many articles you can dig up that illustrate that fame.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles I cited above are limited to a plot summary; all of them provide additional discussion of the significance of the fictional character. Which I already stated above, and which you would know had you read them. Also, please don't cite your own one-sided arguments in making an ad hominem challenge to another editor. It's poor form. Stick to the actual discussion here.
I will not read the rest of your wall of text, Hijiri. Drop the WP:BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will be the last thing I write here since, like I said two replies ago, I am sick of dealing with you. One of the sources you found was a bare GBooks link: I had to search for "Sandor" myself and the only things I found were plot details; another was an article speculating on the character's then-forthcoming return in the show with very little to offer beyond what could already be cited directly to the show itself; only one was good for GNG purposes.
Nothing I wrote was an ad hominem argument: you could claim that it was off-topic (and I would disagree as I did above), but how exactly could I be making ad hominem arguments to delete the article, when I am not even arguing for the article to be deleted? I added necessary clarification of previous discussions related to this AFD, which you clearly have not read.
And your accusing me of BLUDGEON is pretty laughable. If I wanted to BLUDGEON this or any other discussion, I would start posting strings of comments beneath every comment I disagreed with, and I have not done this either here or in the Tony Chang AFD, so it really isn't clear what you are referring to.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the walls of text; could I make that any more clear? Also, your ad hominem arguments refer to the (perfectly sound) contributions of two editors here, which you want to dismiss based on disagreements you have had with them elsewhere. That is a perfect example of ad hominem - you should stick with discussing what is actually written in this discussion.
The google book contains a whole essay that opens with and contains significant critical discussion of Sandor; that is not anything like "plot details", and neither is the audience reception analysis included in the businessinsider piece. Based on this evidence, I would question your reading comprehension. And if you think that these kinds of discussion do not contribute to WP:N, then I'm afraid your judgement on the matter should not be trusted, either. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the discussion, the article should not be merged. Calibrador (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he already died once, no need to kill his article again Mardetanha (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2017 (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/Sandor_Clegane&oldid=1138338241"