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.
Fails
WP:GNG with a lack of reliable, secondary sources. The article is entirely sourced from interviews. A list entry is plausible, but does not meet the criteria for a standalone article. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't see it that way, given that there is an evaluation how the character is seen and put on screen. But be that as it may, Fancruft is no reason for deletion. To quote the
essay you put forward: "If the user comes across fancruft, an approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." Relevant for deletion is the question if the subject is notable, i.e. treated in secondary sources, no matter if these are already in the article or not.
Daranios (
talk)
16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: The Matrix is well-studied, with lots of published film criticism and commentary. I think that Daranios' sources are well-chosen, especially Detecting Detection. I have another published interview to add to the pile, from Starlog: "
Keynote Speaker" (Jan 2004). I disagree that interviews with an actor about character development don't count towards the character's notability. The fact that there are multiple interviews in multiple publications discussing the character demonstrates that the character is recognized as notable. Publications don't typically interview every actor in a film; the interest is in the character. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Question: To clarify, when you say the article fails
WP:GNG, how did you determine this? I ask because two of your more recent nominations read as "FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR. Only lists a bunch of minor enemies. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN." (
[8],
[9]). Not only is this a non-sequitor that doesn't reflect
WP:LISTN, but the bulk of the nominations were subjective declarations of importance, and not deletion criteria. The delete vote above is equally unconvincing for
similar reasons. Darkknight214921:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I think that it's best when an AfD discussion sticks to what's being said here about this article, rather than bringing in statements from a different discussion. The only thing that matters for the Keymaker article is the existence of reliable sources writing about the Keymaker. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
22:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep based on sources provided. I think taken together there is enough to pass GNG. I also agree that interviews work towards notability if they go into the creation, development, and/or reception of the character.
Rhino131 (
talk)
00:53, 23 October 2020 (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.
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.
Fails
WP:GNG with a lack of reliable, secondary sources. The article is entirely sourced from interviews. A list entry is plausible, but does not meet the criteria for a standalone article. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't see it that way, given that there is an evaluation how the character is seen and put on screen. But be that as it may, Fancruft is no reason for deletion. To quote the
essay you put forward: "If the user comes across fancruft, an approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." Relevant for deletion is the question if the subject is notable, i.e. treated in secondary sources, no matter if these are already in the article or not.
Daranios (
talk)
16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: The Matrix is well-studied, with lots of published film criticism and commentary. I think that Daranios' sources are well-chosen, especially Detecting Detection. I have another published interview to add to the pile, from Starlog: "
Keynote Speaker" (Jan 2004). I disagree that interviews with an actor about character development don't count towards the character's notability. The fact that there are multiple interviews in multiple publications discussing the character demonstrates that the character is recognized as notable. Publications don't typically interview every actor in a film; the interest is in the character. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Question: To clarify, when you say the article fails
WP:GNG, how did you determine this? I ask because two of your more recent nominations read as "FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR. Only lists a bunch of minor enemies. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN." (
[8],
[9]). Not only is this a non-sequitor that doesn't reflect
WP:LISTN, but the bulk of the nominations were subjective declarations of importance, and not deletion criteria. The delete vote above is equally unconvincing for
similar reasons. Darkknight214921:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I think that it's best when an AfD discussion sticks to what's being said here about this article, rather than bringing in statements from a different discussion. The only thing that matters for the Keymaker article is the existence of reliable sources writing about the Keymaker. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
22:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep based on sources provided. I think taken together there is enough to pass GNG. I also agree that interviews work towards notability if they go into the creation, development, and/or reception of the character.
Rhino131 (
talk)
00:53, 23 October 2020 (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.