Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Elliott (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 delete. Tone 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Elliott (character)[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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is nowhere near enough to show that this character is actually in any way notable. Wikipedia is not meant to be Wikia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character is covered in detail in numerous books including The American Family on Television; TV Weddings: An Illustrated Guide; Television Character and Story Facts; and the Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010. Our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Please quote that "coverage in detail". All I see is a passing plot summary-level mentions and no analysis. Your "detailed coverage" in the cited encyclopedia is one sentence (p.828) "Betty Jo married Steve Elliott in fourth season episode and they later became the parents of Kathy Jo." Do tell me what am I missing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps Google is restricting Piotrus' access. I can see the entire entry in that encyclopedia and there's much more than one sentence. I shan't be copy-typing it all though as that would be both a chore and a copyright violation. I am content that this establishes the encyclopedic and notable nature of the content and so we're good. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew Davidson, WP:QUOTE allows quoting of at least several sentences, so you should be safe. But if this is a "chore", can you tell us the number of the page you are looking at, and the position of the text you are wary of citing on that page? That should be safe enough, and indeed if there are entire paragraphs I missed, we wouldn't want to have you sued for excessive quoting, now, would we? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The quote that matters here is Piotrus's statement above: 'Your "detailed coverage" in the cited encyclopedia is one sentence...' Perhaps Piotrus can tell us why they said it was one sentence, when it is more than that. Is the difficulty reading, comprehension, counting or what? We should understand their deficiency to best address it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Andrew Davidson, "Betty Jo married Steve Elliott in fourth season episode and they later became the parents of Kathy Jo." is a single sentence. If you have more relevant sentences about the character, quote them. The ball is in your court. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew - Piotrus provided one sentence. His evidence is right here for everyone to see. . Yet considering you have not presented a single sentence to defend your position, what I see is not a reading deficiency. You claim "detailed coverage," yet you provided zero proof, not even a single sentence to back up your claims. That's a deficiency, really, and of a pretty low sort - claiming that sources exist yet ignoring to provide quotations when asked. If, as you indicated above, it is a chore to provide evidence to back up your claims, perhaps you should concentrate on contributing to discussions in places you don't find so tiresome. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Petticoat Junction - While some mentions of the character do exist in sources (though even most of that is casting and/or plot summaries), none of it is actually extensive enough to justify the character being split out into an independent article, rather than just being covered on the main article for the show, which he already is. As there is essentially no useful, reliably sourced content in the article currently, no Merge is needed, but a simple redirect may be useful. Though, in becoming a redirect, it should really be renamed, as well, as "character" is not a particularly great way to distinguish him from other Steve Elliots, especially considering he's not the only fictional Steve Elliot. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing sources that would pass GNG for this character. The information can be covered in the main article for the tv series. I suppose it could be redirected but I doubt it would be searched. Rhino131 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:11, 23 January 2021 (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.