Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Starling


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 08:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarice Starling

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sources in the article are either primary or do not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to Hannibal Lecter (franchise) (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster  (chat!)  02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film,  and Television.  Spinixster   (chat!)  02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I find it extremely hard to believe that such an instantly recognisable character, played by two extremely well-known actors, has not received adequate coverage. There's a whole spin-off with her name as the title. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ebscosearch has 1,698 hits for the quoted name and there are 7,827 on Proquest; top hits include Due, Tananarive. "DR. LECTER, MY NAME IS CLARICE STARLING". Vanity Fair. 2021 Hollywood, Vol. 63 Issue 3, p118-143 and Fuller, Stephen M., Deposing an American Cultural Totem: Clarice Starling and Postmodern Heroism in Thomas Harris's Red Dragon, The Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal. Journal of Popular Culture Aug2005, Vol. 38 Issue 5, p819. ETA: There's also a whole chapter in Linda Mizejewski. Hardboiled & High Heeled: The Woman Detective in Popular Culture. Routledge, 2004. (chapter 7). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That does not necessarily mean that that character would be notable, even if the character has a spinoff. I'll review the sources:
 * First source is an interview, which is arguably primary.
 * Second source seems okay for use.
 * Third source is definitely okay, there's a lot of coverage on the aspects of the character, comparing the book version to the film's.
 * I think more sources would be needed other than the two. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That was by no means the only material in those searches, just what a few mins of looking came up with. The character is extremely well covered as even a cursory look would show. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A source review would have to be done for each of the sources to see if it has significant coverage / analysis or just a brief mention. I don't feel like looking at over 8000 articles, though. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "I don't feel like looking at over 8000 articles, though." Then you should not propose an article with >8k potential sources for deletion! Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I only nominated it for deletion as a vote to see if they are notable or not. Even if a character has a lot of sources, that does not mean all of them are usable. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Starling ever existed, so I doubt we can talk about primary sources here. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Espresso Addict's thoughts above. CSK#3: The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided, emphasis mine (See also Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes) &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all Seems like the nominator has mass AFDed several articles without any real WP:BEFORE.★Trekker (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done a WP:BEFORE before, but all I found were plot summaries or brief mentions of the character, thus why I brought it here to have others' opinions on whether or not the character is notable. Spinixster   (chat!)  08:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. There are books written about making of film, the character is explored and included in different lists of best characters.
 * Is there really a doubt that the character has significant coverage?
 * Even when one considers other nominations, it is hard to think how they are useful to encyclopedia. But this nomination is just wrong. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 
 * Kirill C1 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://ew.com/tv/clarice-silence-of-the-lambs-interview/
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/arts/television/clarice-starling-cbs-history.html
 * Just some of the sources. I hope the sources on this deletion page will be enough for keeping article soon. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The second source is dead, and the third source is an interview (which does not prove notability). Screen Rant is listed as marginally reliable per WP:VG/S and WP:RSP, but that rounds up to just two usable sources. Note that the significant coverage needs to be for the character, not anything else. Spinixster   (chat!)  02:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You do understand that this isn't an interview with Clarice Starling, so this can't be primary source? Kirill C1 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:Interviews. Spinixster   (chat!)  08:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:BEFORE shows that there are lots of scholarly essays about Clarice (maybe not with her full name). For example, there's a 200 page book literally called "The Silence of the Lambs: Critical Essays on a Cannibal, Clarice, and a Nice Chianti". There's a fair bit of analysis of her role and importance there. There are certainly more books if anyone wants me to pull them up. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I've noted thm in other discussion, I'll note them here's as well, here's two more books that provide SIGCOV of all the major film/book characters:
 * The Silence of the Lambs: Devil's Advocates by Barry Forshaw
 * The Silence of the Lambs by Yvonne Tasker
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above. Scholarly essays show clear notability. Also worth noting that several sources may be from newspapers or magazines as she is from the 1990s, where the internet was not used much (and any online sources may now be archived). Also, I disagree that an interview about a fictional character is primary, as the character itself is not giving the interview: the actor(s) or producers are. If a character was not notable, they would not schedule and publish an interview about the character. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that the character is notable, I do not think that an interview would prove the character's notability. WP:Interviews says so. Spinixster   (chat!)  08:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would set as a rule that when an actor wins an Academy Award for a lead role performance as a character, the character is presumably notable. I understand that some will object that the award is about the actor and not the character, but it is not as though such awards are given in a vacuum, with the Academy not knowing what role the nominated actor is playing. I would add that this can only be multiplied by additional appearances, particularly where 1) the character is adapted to film from a literary source; 2) the character appears in multiple films or multiple media; and/or 3) the character is portrayed by different actors across the media. In those cases, comparisons of performances become almost inevitable. BD2412  T 04:23, 15 October 2023 (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.