Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David "Noodles" Aaronson


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

David &
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Marked unsourced since 2008. Entirely in universe plot minutiae which is already adequately covered in the parent article - Once Upon a Time in America. This is my first AFD nomination for absolutely years, but discussions at the Video games Wikiproject has shown that our standards of enforcement when it comes down to fictional characters is incredibly poor. Wikipedia is not a plot repository - WP:NOTPLOT, we should not be replicating the plot of a film split across multiple character centric narratives. If you agree, then I suggest you look through templates such as Template:The Chronicles of Prydain, Template:Godfather, Template:The Dark Tower and many others, and start clearing out the novel length cruft we have accumulated over the years. hahnch e n 17:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete One-time character that doesn't transcend the one piece of fiction he appeared in. Only plot (WP:NOT), nothing to merge, unlikely (direct) search term. – sgeureka t•c 17:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue clean up. In searches, one learns that the character is discussed and analyzed in sources. There are enough sources available to show real-world notability for this iconic fictional character.  I might have suggested a redirect to Robert DeNiro or even back to Once Upon a Time in America, but it seems that sources have given this character more than just a passing or trivial mention in their analysis and commentary.  There is nothing wrong with and we most certianly allow articles on iconic fictional characters if we have the supporting sources. To WP:WAX with apologies, I am reminded of James T. Kirk, Queequeg, Jack Sparrow, Han Solo, Captain Queeg, Hermione Granger, Peter Pan, Wendy Darling et al.  Topic notability is dependent on the availability of sources. Simply put, if there are issues with a sense of cruft, we address to make it less crufty... but we do not delete notable topics that simply need work. Instead rather, we encourage such work be done. The resulting article will likley be smaller, and will certainly contain sourced plot elements for context. But that's what cleanup is all about.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've just linked to a Google search, and said "Trust me, sources exist. This is notable."  You're going to get Google results, because you get Google results for everything, and also because it's Robert De Niro in a Sergio Leone film.  That doesn't mean that the character should have an article though, it doesn't mean it can't be covered in articles on the film or actor instead.  Maybe if some of those sources discuss this subject at length, then it's worthy of an article, but pointing at a list of unparsed results and saying "Trust me, I believe." isn't good enough. - hahnch e n 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No matter how you interpreted my comments, I did not respond by simply saying "Trust me, sources exist. This is notable", nor by saying "Trust me, I believe". So I would ask that you do not put words in my mouth. What I did do, rather than offer farcical results, is offer results of a more defined search parameter that removed false positives for this topic, and then suggest that we can remove cruft and still have a viable article on this major character from a major film. My comments are supported by WP:Deletion policy and the alternatives to outright deletion as suggested by that policy involving regular editing, and not by asserting that anyone said something that they did not. Simply put, and you MAY quote this guideline and policy supported comment, "we rarely delete notable topics if article issues can be addressed through regular editing". I undersand your concerns with the article.  It is overlarge, yes. It is crufty, yes. But even without my being forced by your AFD to do so myself (as I have MANY times as a result of other AFDs), the issues raised are addessable. I am not blowing smoke up anyone's skirts, nor speaking without having knowledge of the processes. I have myself improved MANY articles that were facing deletion and DO understand how such is done and the work involved. You have indicated in your nomination that you have little patience with crufty articles and have suggested we begin "clearing out the novel length cruft we have accumulated over the years."  I have valid and policy based reasons to believe that cleaning up is far better for the project than simply clearing out... and that cleaning up and addressing is do-able here as well.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny how absolutely everyone on WP seems to "misinterpret" your comments as "Trust me, sources exist. This is notable.". Considering how you keep claiming notability with unreliable or unconclusive evidence such as mostly trivial mentions or listings that you magically turn into "discussions and analyses", deliberately ignoring the WP:GNG request for "significant coverage more than trivial mentions" in the process, and keep labelling everything that goes to an AfD as "iconic", maybe you should stop blaming the others for "putting words in your mouth", and start finding better convincing arguments for conservation...Or maybe just stop assuming the role of an inclusionist who wants to keep everything just for the sake of it...Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In responding to your delightful WP:ADHOM arguments against me as an editor, what's unhelpful in civil discussion is attempts to negatively color my opinion by claiming that I want to "keep everything just for the sake of it", when it is easily provable that I quite often opine a delete for non-notable or unsalvable articles at AFD, underscoring my NOT wishing to keep just everything. Indeed, I am quite happy to vote delete and my opinions are born out by consensus more often than not. And when they are not... so what? In either case the encyclopedia is improved. And while your disparagement of me is irrelevent to this discussion, I do wish to thank you for the chuckle. And in case you missed it up above, I did not flatly say "Keep"... but instead said "Keep and clean up", followed by my thoughts toward how doing so might address the nominator's valid concerns toward the article's content and style and yet still offer a viable article on this character for our readers. And that one editor, or even two or three, might disagree with my analysis elsewhere is not "absolutely everyone"... and such claim is a rather farcical hyperbole intended to negatively color this discussion... being pretty much incorrect.  Can we discuss the points rather then make agruments to the editor?
 * As for the issue at hand, I prefer judging notability through application of policy and through reasonable consideration of guideline. In agreement with the nominator I have stated that the present article is indeed crufty and then offered my reasonings to why I believe the article issues can be addressed. Toward this, I see Noodles as being a major character in a notable film who has indeed been the recipient of multiple instances of more-than-trivial commentary and analysis in multiple sources... not all sources, certainly... but enough. Those instances of more-then-trivial coverage is a decent indicator that the nom's concern with this article issues might be addressed through regular editing, rather than the entire article tossed simply because its addressable crufty state has not yet been addressed by someone else.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only uncivil behavior I see here is yours, when you accuse others of "putting words in your mouth" and "misinterpreting" when they point to obvious flaws in your logic. I'm merely stating the obvious: 3 different users each in a different AfD expressed the same opinion on your behavior. If you want to insist that we "put words in your mouth", then you should try to make yourself clearer...otherwise, you should admit that your constant twisting and bending of guidelines and words is unhelpful and likely to create tensions, and try to change that. Notability requires "significant coverage (in detail, more than a trivial mention), from reliable, third party sources". I don't see these sources, neither in this article nor in this discussion. You merely pointed to a google search and labelled it "discussion and analysis" without linking to a single source that would actually be that. I only see a list of sources where the name of the character is mentionned, and nothing that clearly indicates the existance of a detailed coverage. Don't forget that burden of evidence lies with the editor wanting to keep a content; we shouldn't have to look through the google search you throw at us in hope of finding a valid source, and you shouldn't try to keep this article with the mere supposition that someone else is eventually going to find something there...As WP:AfD states, "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive". If you do not point to specific sources with discussion and analyses, then you cannot claim the topic was discussed and analysed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to acknowledge that the editor attributed statements to me that I did not make, then my also pointing out that your cherrypicked reference to an AFD discussion elsewhere about a different topic, one where most editors actually agreed with my guideline and policy guided analysis and where only a very few did not, will not make any difference here... and of course such is not relevant to the topic being discussed. If you feel my politeness here and elsewhere to be disruptive, then please... by all means file an ANI and demand I be banned from AFD discussions. Have a nice day.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, no significant coverage in third party sources so fails WP:GNG. Article is merely plot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your opinion then that current state is not adressable? That plot cruft cannot be removed nor the article improved through regular editing?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Without significant coverage in third party sources, no, nothing can be improved or addressed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: the beginning of article cleanup to address concerns has been initiated since the last comment above, using sources which address the character of David "Noodles" Aaronson directly and in detail. As plot is being trimmed, the article is now somewhat smaller.  No... it is not yet perfect... and no, it may never be... but it is now sourced and what has been accomplished so far, is something done after examination of available sources linked far above and through regular editing. Contributors are welcome to assist.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And again, you're taking great liberties with the definition of "directly and in detail". The sources are only summaries of the movies which, of course, mention the name of the main character, but nothing beyond that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by those who looked at available sources, some are certainly something more than mere trivial mentions. That some sources speak toward and analyze a fictional character in direct relationship to the work of fiction is to expected.  And, as he is after all a fictional character, we would expect to find coverage of him in this manner and not expect to find sources about a fictional character speaking in public or promoting real-world topics. Does he have the wide spread fame of fictional characters Han Solo, Hermione Granger, or James T. Kirk? Nope. Have there been action figure toys or fan films made of him? Nope.  Are those the criteria set by WP:N? Nope.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the WP:PROFESSIONAL essay (which is based on the WP:GNG guideline), the current version includes direct coverage of the character by professional critics; I think the sources provided show notability. Either that or merge the Analysis section into Once Upon a Time in America, it has well-sourced verifiable content; that content shouldn't be deleted. Diego (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I found this AfD through the Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts) list, and just noticed that it's listed at the Rescue list. Diego (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not character coverage but mentions of the character in a plot summary. The sources have to be about the character itself, not the movie.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's more than plot summary. This book mentions Robert de Niro preparing the character (thus not plot summary and direct coverage of the character); this (page 69) analyzes the implausibility of the characters situation and behavior and comments on the interpretation that it is a dream; and page 70 lists other actors originally considered for the character. All of this is critical commentary quite beyond a mere plot depiction, exactly what's required by WP:GNG ("address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content"). Diego (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep notable character in notable movie played by notable actor. At a minimum the Analsyis section should be merged to the movie article per Diego. CallawayRox (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Information about the character is out there and significant. The first reference in the Analysis section goes into detail about them. Others have found sources covering the character just fine.  D r e a m Focus  18:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have no issue with that section being merged elsewhere and then setting a redirect of this searchable topic. It is fiction, after all, and sources speaking about fictional characters in direct relationship to that work of fiction is to be expected.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw delete - (edit conflict) Schmidt's done some good work on this since it was nominated, and I see that the guys at ARS agree. But what was previously here and worth salvaging?  Nothing.  The thing of value in this article is the analysis - this is all new work.  But I question why you would put the work into this article, and "rescue it" rather than putting that detail into Once Upon a Time in America, where as others have suggested would be a suitable merge candidate.  This could have then been deleted, a high visibility article would have been improved, and nothing would have been lost.  I'm withdrawing my delete, but I think that instead of looking at the articles we must rescue, and look wider, we'd do even better. - hahnch e n 19:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admittedly, my work on the article was done mostly because of the assertion that it could not and thus should not be done. And though far less so than when nominated, it does still contain plot summary... but the argument now is that some is needed for proper context to what is offered by the later-added anaylysis section. What was salvaged shows the character as receiving enough coverage to be worth including... and even if not in its own article, at least included somewhere. And yes, I could certainly have made my edits to Once Upon a Time in America, but I was presented with a "put-up-or-shut-up" challenge. To be more succint, While it was crap when I began, the work shows that the information can have a place somehwhere within these pages if properly presented... and I have absolutley no problem with a merge and redirect of that added section.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis that editing can fix the article, as has already been acknowledged. I find it strange that an editor should question the decision of a specialist to put extensive work into improving an articleL: it is more such specialists that we need, many more. I cannot do the work MQS has the knowledge to do, and I am not capable of fixing everything he can fix, but this is a reason why I should let him do his best, rather than suggest he work elsewhere. I agree that trying to improve articles under the pressure of AfD is not ideal, and he and I and the many other specialists in different topics would work better if we were free of the constraints of having to work immediately on whatever other people choose to nominate, but that's the way AfD works, and will continue to work until people use better judgment in what the nominate for deletion. If people want us to concentrate on a broader level, or work on the articles that would most repay the efforts, it is in their hands.  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (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.