Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DG (character)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DG (character)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable character from the television miniseries Tin Man (TV miniseries). Has no significant coverage in reliable third party sources, and is nothing but a repeat of the plot of the series. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and goes against both the TV and Film MoSs and the current and old versions of WP:FICT. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Gotta agree with the nom on this one. 100% plot summary, and just a character-specific rehash of the summary that's already present in the main article, which already needs trimming. Hence nothing worth saving or merging, and the disambiguator makes even the title an unlikely search term, so delete. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, and the article is from a totally in-universe persepctive that doesn't analyze the character's relationship with the real world. Themfromspace (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of characters in Tin Man. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ← Note: This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That article's up for deletion for the same reasons as this one, so I'm not sure how that'd help. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to out of universe discussion of character available in numerous reliable secondary sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked over the first page of results there and only this one seems to devote any substantial coverage to this particular character, and it's not anything that couldn't easily be worked into the main Tin Man (TV miniseries) article. I really don't think that's enough to support a stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's plenty more. In but minutes, I have already been able to find out of universe information in newspapers and other reliable sources to start Production and Reception sections and I see there's even more from my searches for further expansion and referencing.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please actually provide way more than one line of production and two lines of reception, all of which also apply the miniseries as a whole which is notably absent of such information. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not help? These lines apply specifically to this notable character and is a sufficient start that justifies at worst a merge and redirect, but clearly any reason for deletion has been eliminated at this point.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Help what? Add a few lines of stuff to an article, proclaim "you must keep now" when really, there is still little real-world info beyond a few snippets of information, then abandon it to the same sorry state if the AfD closes as a keep (as I have seen others who make the same arguments do in many such discussions before)? If you feel its a merge, then say merge instead of a delete, say so instead of proclaiming it must be kept as is. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate the efforts, but I'd much prefer to see this effort and improvement being put into the main article, where it is really needed. These sources are great for expanding "casting" and "reception" sections within the main article, and then we can consider stand-alone article if appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe this information should go there, too, I am not opposed to it being added, but I really see no reason why not to also expand on it here as well as we can do so. After all, we have an article on Battle of Waterloo that overlaps with Napoleon.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still personally think it should be kept because it meets our guidelines by having a balance of in-universe plot with out of universe information on production and reception and I can clearly see that there are actually several times as many sources as I did use that can be used to further expand this sections. It is difficult work trying to rescue these articles and having to comment in the AfDs as well.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that's a fair comparison at all, as there are innumerable sources for both Napoleon and Waterloo. There are volumes upon volumes devoted just to Waterloo, as it's a battle of major historical significance that's been studied by hundreds of scholars in the 2 centuries since it happened. We're talking about individual characters from a 3-episode television miniseries a little over a year old. Hardly a comparable amount of material to expand on, and the pool of available source material is tiny by comparison. But I digress...I'll do some work on the main article tonight using the refs you've supplied and see where it takes us. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And there are dozens of reliable secondary sources for this character as well, which is of major significance for people who study fictional characters, because truthful what this article concerns is essentially a variation of a character that has appeared in various films and literature for decades, i.e. it's not merely mergeable and relevant to the mini-series. The out of universe information, especially where Miss Deschanel discusses her portrayal versus Judy Garland's is also mergeable and relevant to Dorothy Gale.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of characters in Tin Man as is standard in these cases or keep. Character has some degree of notability, and combined they certainly do.   Hobit (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to keep as the article is now sourced and written better than I'd suspected it could be. Hobit (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as there are sources. One would think this ought to satisfy everyone involved. Apparently it doesn't--but that seems to just be the general line taken by those who oppose these articles, that whatever might be added will necessarily be trivial, because the topic is necessarily trivial. That's a dangerous approach, because if we combine everything that one or another editor here think is trivial, there won;t be much left. Furthermore, such n approach is discouraging to the readers. As Samuel Johnson once said about childish tastes, "they'll find better books later". DGG (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you actually look at those sources? All that is in the article is all any of them actually say. That isn't significant cover independant of the film, its just plain coverage of the film. Of course any review/article on the film itself is going to mention the characters briefly, that doesn't make them notable. Indeed, at least three of those "sources" are the same review being used to argue keep on ALL of these articles because it is a review of the miniseries. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do a thorough Google News search, you will see not just reviews, but also interviews and previews and the fact that they appear in such notable publications as The New York Times means that the characters and series have attracted mainstream attention. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG is not being lazy as much as he is advancing an intellectually meretricious view, cleverly gussied up as a virtue. We have long agreed by consensus that Wikipedia is not a trivia site. Adding trivia and then "sourcing" it and placing it under a different rubric doesn't make it any less trivial. If an article consists merely of plot and trivia, it doesn't belong here, pure and simple. Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article actually consistents of about as much out of universe information as it does in universe and sources like the The New York Times are hardly trivial, which is why there is no valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus, could you explain how to determine if something is "trivia" or not? It sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as one man's trivia (say various bits of computer architecture) is quite important to another.  But I'm curious how you'd deal with that.  Just take opinions in AfD?  03:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, almost every possible topic of less than universal interest has been challenged as trivial: Biblical characters, medieval rulers, distinguished professors,, railroad stations, American Idol winners, professional wrestlers, classical musicians, standard historic ballads, Shakespearian sonnets,  and almost everything in the way of fiction. Again, I'll let Samuel Johnson say it "All knowledge is itself of some value. There is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would rather know it than not." (14 Apr.1775) I hope people will not consider that meretricious (=dishonest) also. DGG (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nice work finding sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge reliably sourced content to miniseries article; article should not stand alone because of attempted rescue that falsely plays up the significance of this character. Sources can be used to cover this character and other details of the miniseries at the miniseries article itself.  Grow outward from within; don't keep inanely spun out articles for posterity's sake. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge to List of characters in Tin Man or Tin Man (TV miniseries). This miniseries was substantially reviewed by nearly every major newspaper and many national magazines, so there is clearly plenty of independent reliable source material to say something independently verifiable about the main character. Whether it should be said in a separate article or in the list of characters or main article is a question to be determined on the articles' talk pages, not at AfD. DHowell (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Main supporting character in a series and article NPOV and has sources added. No reason to delete this. -- Banj e  b oi   08:51, 26 January 2009 (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.