Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corleone family


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Clear that consensus will not develop for deletion. I encourage those who have helped find good sources to incorporate them and improve the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Corleone family

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

Does not meet GNG or any other notability standard, and is not necessary as a split from List of The Godfather characters either. Severe over-detail and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems requiring WP:TNT. Should be redirected or deleted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Film. Skynxnex (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator cites the manual of style, demonstrating that the topic can be covered encyclopedically: MOS only determines how we present things, not what we present. No evidence of BEFORE, and nothing ever requires TNT. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My MOS concerns are secondary (which is why I put them second). The primary problem is lack of any basis for notability per GNG or any other standard, and a lack of necessity to split from any other article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to pick on you individually, but any concern with MOS can be fixed by regular editing, and hence including one in a deletion rationale demonstrates that deletion is not needed. It's like saying, "Your honor, I didn't hit him, but he deserved it anyways." Kind of a silly example, but the point is that the first clause, if sufficient, is sufficient, and adding a second, incompatible rationale undermines the first.
 * I'd also suggest you look at what Google Scholar has to say about the Corleone family. Just because there aren't references now, doesn't mean some couldn't be added, and that undermines the notability argument per WP:NEXIST. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your explanation. For those wondering, I did check search results before nominating the article. My view is that almost all of the articles which appeared were either passing references, not in-depth coverage, or focused on The Godfather films as films, not on the Corleone family as a fictional family. However, it's clear that general opinion is running the other way. If the article can be improved and rewritten to focus on coverage in reliable sources and move past WP:NOTPLOT, that would be a good thing, but given its current state I believe WP:TNT would be useful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree that there was no evidence of a BEFORE. Also, having "Severe over-detail and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems" are reasons for improving an article, as it is an admission of notability, not deleting it. Donald D23   talk to me  22:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of The Godfather characters. While the nom would be better if it discussed BEFORE results, the article is a pure plot summary. Now, my BEFORE (a simple GS query from the link above) does suggest the topic is potentially notable, but that doesn't change the fact that in the current form the article doe fail WP:NOTPLOT. I'd be happy to vote keep if anyone bothers to start a reception/analysis section with RS; if that happens please ping me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep — I disagree that "...severe over-detail and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems..." is a reason to delete a page. Deleting is not cleanup, moreso, this supposed fictional family is notable. I was surprised when this came up on my watchlist. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is true that most of the initial promising results in Google Scholar are a bunch of passing mentions and unrelated topics, but I believe I found three good sources that are enough to pass GNG, this article in the International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, this book chapter published by Palgrave Macmillan, and this paper in the Journal of Media Critiques, each of which focus on the Corleone family in general rather than a particular character or the themes of the films more broadly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:29, 28 January 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.