Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Shaitan


 * 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. There is a consensus below that at least some of the information in the article should be kept. There is not consensus as to whether it should be as a stand-alone article or merged to coverage of the serial. Further talk page discussion may be helpful. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

El Shaitan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence given that the character is notable outside of the single serial he appeared in. The writing style is not terribly encyclopedic, and I'm not sure it could be suitably rewritten. Merging it into the serial's article would seem to give undue weight to the character. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't read the books myself, but, on the face of it, it would seem more than likely that coverage in books with titles such as The bad guys: a pictorial history of the movie villain, The encyclopedia of super villains and Reel bad Arabs: how Hollywood vilifies a people would be more about the character than about the films. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't tell exactly from Snippet View, but it appears that Reel Bad Arabs merely quotes El Shaitan, rather than treating him in depth. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So... -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, what to do with Jeff Rovin's "The encyclopedia of super villains" and William K. Everson's "The bad guys"? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep. Wikipedia has load of articles about fictional characters, so clearly there cannot be an objection in principle to having articles on fictional characters.  The serial was made a long time ago and so is little known today.  This actually makes the article potentially more useful than one on more recent fictional characters - i.e. it being old does not make it irrelevant.  Given that there are sources on this subject, there is no reason why the article cannot be developed to become a good article.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the name merely means "the Devil" or "Satan", there are almost surely several if not many villains with a variant of thsi name. For example Lord of Samarcand and other adventure tales of the old Orient found by a Google book search on this name uses it for a place. DES (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Dare Miss the Next Thrilling Chapter By Anthony L. Fletcher appears to summarize the plot of the serial with several mentions of the character, and to discuss the serial as a whole critically but not much discussion of the character as such. DES (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The vanishing legion: a history of Mascot Pictures, 1927-1935 by Jon Tuska discusses how the character was played, and in particularly that multiple actors played the part or provided the voice at different times in the serial. DES (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussion in the article on the series is totally inadequate. A proper merge might be an alternative, since  what matters is retaining the content, not how it is divided into articles.    DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert Frazer played in more than two hundred movies, a lot of different roles. So it wouldn't be proper decision to merge. Besides there were three another men involved in portretizing El Shaitan. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge to The Three Musketeers (1933 serial), probably in a paragraph below the cast list. Deletion should never have been considered but rather a discussion to merge.  The film serial article could use more meat.  It would be uneven with the addition of this character information, but it is best to preserve the content and to work on adding content about other characters and other aspects of the serial. Erik (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that I didn't give an opinion about disposition above, so I'll say this should be either a keep or a merge to The Three Musketeers (1933 serial), but whichever is done the content should be preserved. If merging leads to an imbalance in the serial article then the solution is to add more content about other aspects of the serial, not to remove good content about the character. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't cope you, Phil. Your answer was to keep or to merge? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion: If majority will decide to merge, I'm asking the administrator, who will resume this discussion to delete this article and replace it in my space for further edit. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is to merge, then the article cannot be deleted. The page history must be preserved.  You can follow the redirect, access the page history, and develop the content in a user sub-page. Erik (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's much more difficult to face and disentangle the consequences of merger than to improve the deleted article in private space. I hioe you understand what I am talking about. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do, but if the consensus is not to delete, the article will not be deleted. I do know what you mean and recommend not trying to work in the user space.  Work with the merged content at the main article to provide information about not just this character, but the serial in general.  If the main article eventually gets too big to cover all the details, a sub-article, like a character article, can be created.  The main article can have a summary section about the character and have a main link to the character sub-article.  It's very strange to see sparse main articles and such developed character articles.  Most characters will be discussed in context of the film, so it seems that information about other elements of the topic is overlooked in a very specific research focus. Erik (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2010 (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.