![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Samwell Tarly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This topic is with out a doubt notable, user:Hijiri88 claims it's not. The page contains several sources that proves it has notability. -
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. [emphasis mine]
more can even be addedDo that then. We'll see if the topic still looks like it doesn't meet GNG after you fix the article up a bit. I'll even do you a solid -- even though technically the maintenance should remain in the article until notability has been demonstrated, I'll agree to leave it out unless you try and fail to fix the notability problem. Currently, the article makes no claim to notability; both the books and the show include dozens of characters, and there's no reason to assume we can write anything about them beyond basic plot information Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Do that thenWhy are you using this tone with me, just relax. I still think it meets GNG as it is now, but don't worry more will be added. - AffeL ( talk) 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, this edit summary shows a grave misunderstanding of our notability guidelines. Did you even read my first response to you above? I took the emphasis off everything except "significant coverage" for a reason. If we have a lot of sources, but all those sources really say about this character is regurgitated plot summary, that is not enough to demonstrate notability.
As I said on Talk:Olenna Tyrell, I actually suspect this topic might meet GNG, but you have not done anything so far to demonstrate that, as all you have taken from the supposedly extensive sources is that the actor who played the character (and who is already covered in a separate article) was nominated as part of the cast for a few ensemble awards. Where is the literary analysis? Where are the themes, real-world influences, and critical reception?
I am actually fairly certain that reliable sources for such information on this character (though not some of the others) could be found, but are you interested in looking for them? You seem to have a fairly dismissive attitude toward the books and their place in popular culture in general, so I am wondering.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I opened a discussion about using Esquire/WikiWhat-facebook as sources for this article at RSN here -- Jytdog ( talk) 02:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Samwell Tarly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This topic is with out a doubt notable, user:Hijiri88 claims it's not. The page contains several sources that proves it has notability. -
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. [emphasis mine]
more can even be addedDo that then. We'll see if the topic still looks like it doesn't meet GNG after you fix the article up a bit. I'll even do you a solid -- even though technically the maintenance should remain in the article until notability has been demonstrated, I'll agree to leave it out unless you try and fail to fix the notability problem. Currently, the article makes no claim to notability; both the books and the show include dozens of characters, and there's no reason to assume we can write anything about them beyond basic plot information Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Do that thenWhy are you using this tone with me, just relax. I still think it meets GNG as it is now, but don't worry more will be added. - AffeL ( talk) 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, this edit summary shows a grave misunderstanding of our notability guidelines. Did you even read my first response to you above? I took the emphasis off everything except "significant coverage" for a reason. If we have a lot of sources, but all those sources really say about this character is regurgitated plot summary, that is not enough to demonstrate notability.
As I said on Talk:Olenna Tyrell, I actually suspect this topic might meet GNG, but you have not done anything so far to demonstrate that, as all you have taken from the supposedly extensive sources is that the actor who played the character (and who is already covered in a separate article) was nominated as part of the cast for a few ensemble awards. Where is the literary analysis? Where are the themes, real-world influences, and critical reception?
I am actually fairly certain that reliable sources for such information on this character (though not some of the others) could be found, but are you interested in looking for them? You seem to have a fairly dismissive attitude toward the books and their place in popular culture in general, so I am wondering.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I opened a discussion about using Esquire/WikiWhat-facebook as sources for this article at RSN here -- Jytdog ( talk) 02:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)