Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Sherman (Southland)


 * 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   no consensus. The fact that the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet has been taken into consideration. No prejudice against speedy renomination by another user. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ben Sherman (Southland)

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Fictional character that lacks real-world reliably sourced information. Does not meet general notability guidelines or specific fiction guidelines. Lafe Smith (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete This is quite obviously a personal attack, considering that the user "Lafe Smith" and I have been engaged in a miniature edit war over the John Cooper references for the past day. I expanded this page yesterday and while it may not fully adhere to the guidelines of a fictional character, it can certainly be improved by other users, one of whom could be user "Lafe Smith". Here's a thought: why not follow your own advice and concentrate on fixing things, instead of insisting they be deleted. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles require independent reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject. TNT, the network that broadcasts Southland, is not an independent source. As noted, there do not appear to be such sources for this character. It's not a question of "fully adhering" to guidelines; it's about not adhering to them at all. I am sorry that you choose to interpret this as a personal attack. I simply don't care enough about you to attack you. Lafe Smith (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of other sources; you just have to look for them:    Nominating for deletion on the basis of a complaint about TNT being the only source is not the answer.  Placing the tags  and  would be the appropriate response.  See Jack McCoy, Alan Shore, Natalie Teeger, Fin Tutuola, or Sam Winchester, for example. OCNative (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the character is going to be mentioned in sources that are about the series. Passing mentions of the character in sources that aren't significantly about the character don't meet sourcing guidelines, otherwise every character who's mentioned in "What's on TV tonight" listings would qualify for an article. Neither does pointing out other unsourced or poorly sourced articles about other fictional characters. See WP:WAX. I did not nominate the article based on its current sourcing to TNT. I nominated it on the basis of the non-existence of independent reliable sources that are significantly about the character, which your Google search does not address. See WP:GHITS. The "appropriate response" would be not to write articles about fictional characters (or other subjects) until such time as there are reliable third-party sources about them. Lafe Smith (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood my comment: Ben Sherman and the five examples I cited are all fictional characters who do have significant coverage from independent reliable sources, but whose Wikipedia articles fail to utilize the independent reliable sources, which is why the five examples are tagged  and  and why Ben Sherman should get those tags rather than be deleted.  I will note significant coverage of Ben Sherman from the Wall Street Journal in the United States and The Telegraph in the United Kingdom, just to mention a couple of myriad sources with significant coverage of the character.  You state that notability requires "...independent reliable sources that are significantly about the character," but I will note that Wikipedia's standard for significant coverage actually says: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source..." (emphasis mine).  OCNative (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of sentences in a multi-paragraph article doesn't constitute significant coverage of the character. "So-and-so plays such-and-such, a yadda yadda yadda on TV Series." isn't significant coverage. Lafe Smith (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The examples cited are longer than "a couple of sentences" and are more significant than "So-and-so plays such-and-such, a yadda yadda yadda on TV Series." as they go on to discuss the character. OCNative (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete accusations of bad faith aside... there are good faith reasons for deleting this article. There are no reliable independent sources to WP:verify notability. Lots of google hits but not with the quality of source or depth of coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator Lafe Smith has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia as a sock puppet. Is this nomination still valid? OCNative (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is basically a plot-only description of a fictional work with no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to verify notability. Sources found with a search engine test, are from unreliable sources or plot description of the series, but none cover the character in detail or with critical commentary about the character. So, the article is an unneeded content fork of the article Southland (TV series) and, since the character Ben Sherman is not significantly covered in reliable sources, there is no presumption that the character meets the general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.