Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Jack Crawford (character)

 * – ( 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!)  02:59, 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!)  02:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would agree with the current sources being somewhat questionable, but a quick search shows the character has reliable sources available. (There is also Vox, etc.) I see significant coverage, the character appears to be noteworthy. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the FBI source would prove the character's notability, it's an artifact for the film. The Vox source is more about the show and the part that mentions Crawford is pretty much a plot summary. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you should reread the GNG, because there have been many articles written entirely with one source. The only scenario I agree with an article needing to be heavily sourced is BLP. Otherwise, the topic only needs to have proven notability from reliable sources, which this article most certainly has. UNLIKE BLP, every single detail does not have to be proven for it to be a noteworthy/reliable article. From the other PRODs @Siroxo mentions, it appears you have it out for character articles, so I would suggest avoiding them in general. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The two sources are brief mentions. Per WP:SIGCOV, sources need to addresses the topic directly and in detail. You should also read WP:FICT and Plot-only description of fictional works. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You will note the policy is not specific, and is not discussing fictional character notability, but a very loosely-defined set of rules aimed at the property at large, and having read those specific rulesets essentially redirects to the GNG. I believe the sources are significant coverage enough, and if not already there, they are available to use. Especially for the plot sections, one allowed sneaky trick I would use would be to bring about author quotes from the novel to verify the statements. Thanks for reading, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 11:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So according to your logic, all characters that are mentioned in plot summaries are notable, which as I said, according to SIGCOV, is not true. The sources need to address the topic directly and in detail, and brief mentions are not that. Spinixster   (chat!)  11:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the sources for a third time, I still stand with my original statement: the sources on the article do not, as you said, prove notability. If you insist on these issues being fixed, I pledge to bring the article to a noteworthy state. You can keep the deletion tag if you must, but this article does not need WP:TNT atm. Respectfully, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 12:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect is always an option until notability is proven with sources. Spinixster   (chat!)  13:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will get back to you if I am able to rewrite the article. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 15:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, sources have been shown to NEXIST. There's plenty more if you search "Jack Crawford" hannibal in proquest and limit to scholarly journals or whatever you prefer, eg . While I don't doubt the nominator is acting in good faith, I also see 8 nominations with similar reasoning in a 7-minute time span. I am concerned about this, especially considering other recent nominations like 1, 3, 2, 4, and likely others that I didn't see or am forgetting. &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like the source only briefly mentions the character and there's not much analysis for the character going on. Other sources can be considered. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Jack Crawford is notable, the character has been analyzed. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect. The article has no reception/analysis. I've reviewed the two sources above. Vox seems mostly a plot summary. FBI makes a claim of significance but otherwise fails SIGCOV. If this is the best we can find, I fear this is not enough. Ping me if more sources are found so I can revise my vote if needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus:
 * Yvonne Tasker's The Silence of the Lambs has SIGCOV
 * Barry Forshaw's The Silence of The Lambs: Devil's Advocates has SIGCOV ,
 * The Silence of the Lambs: Critical Essays on a Cannibal, Clarice, and a Nice Chianti, edited by Cynthia J. Miller has SIGCOV
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo Perhaps it is the new vs old Google Books interface, but I am getting just snippet views from your link. What I see in the first source is just a plot summary. Two is similar, also page 29 might have something useful? Third, again, plot summary. If you want me to look into this more, please provide specific page numbers that contain analysis, preferably with links directly to them that provide full view, or quote such material here. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The full views I have of some of these books doesn't include page numbers so here's some quotes:
 * Here's a couple examples from Tasker
 * Chapter 3
 * Chapter 5:
 * Here's some from Forshaw
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, thanks. If this is the best we can do, I think we are still in the borderline territory. That said, feel free to treat my current vote with the qualifier weak. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have looked at a some reviews of the media cited in the articles, for example this review of the Hannibal TV series, which discusses Crawford (and notes that "a sudden detour into Crawford's marriage is mostly dull and takes us away from far more fruitful storylines" — a negative reception is still a reception). BD2412  T 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 What make this source reliable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes it unreliable? For a TV series review from a reviewer (Paul Doro) well-established enough in their field to have reviews published in other publications (e.g., here). Really you should ask User:SchrutedIt08, who added the source to Hannibal (TV series) over ten years ago, where it has since gone unremarked upon. BD2412  T 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as the sources provided by the editors above show notability. I really think this mass deletion is really disfavour to editors – it makes improving the articles much harder as they have to improve 7+ in a few days (and then explain their improvements). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 What make this source reliable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What makes it unreliable? For a TV series review from a reviewer (Paul Doro) well-established enough in their field to have reviews published in other publications (e.g., here). Really you should ask User:SchrutedIt08, who added the source to Hannibal (TV series) over ten years ago, where it has since gone unremarked upon. BD2412  T 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as the sources provided by the editors above show notability. I really think this mass deletion is really disfavour to editors – it makes improving the articles much harder as they have to improve 7+ in a few days (and then explain their improvements). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:01, 12 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.