Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Sandcastle


 * 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. Clearly no consensus to delete. Opinion here is split between keep and merge, and discussion on whether this should be merged to Deion Sanders can take place on the article talk page(s). Michig (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Leon Sandcastle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable Clardak (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 27.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  11:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Multiple reliable sources have been provided. Even if the page can be considered non-notable, a proposed merge template was added to this page to be merged into Deion Sanders a while back, though discussion has never started. It would've been more reasonable to start a merge discussion first than starting the AfD.  Zappa  O  Mati   16:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.   czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Question Where do we set the bar on fictional character bios? Especially ones from a one-off commercial. Anything based on this April Fools' Day hoax should at a minimum be rewritten. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would've !voted for the page to be merged had NFL.com and other reliable sources not overdone the joke so much to the point of an abundance of reliable sources. I mean, come on. An NFL Combine bio on him?  Zappa  O  Mati   20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. A fictional character from a sports video game, based on a real-life football player, does not require a separate Wikipedia article.  This sourced content deserves a two-sentence paragraph in the Deion Sanders article, with a redirect.  Otherwise, delete.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Except Sandcastle first came from a Super Bowl commercial, not a video game, though I still could see a merge. I really don't know.  Zappa  O  Mati   20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, "require" is a bad measure... we don't "require" any pages for Wikipedia. We choose to create them if they are notable and if at least one enthusiastic volunteer editor has the time to create it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul, per WP:N, a presumption of notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."  Here we have a marginally notable topic, of limited encyclopedic value, with little or no substance, closely related to another subject which has undoubted notability, substance, and encyclopedic value.  From this editor's perspective, this is a perfect candidate for editors to "use their discretion to merge two or more related topics into a single article."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Response DL, what you posted is a clear and concise argument for deletion, and that's fine. My "beef" was with the word "require" as though Wikipedia would "require" us to write or not write an article on any subject.  That's what I was getting out of it, and that was what I was commenting on.  As for "encyclopedic value" that is subjective and varies from person to person.  WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not a reason to delete.  When you say "closely related to another subject" I'm forced to ask which subject:  2013 NFL Draft, Super Bowl XLVII, Deion Sanders, National Football League, or Under Armour to name a few.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep fictional characters from television commercials can indeed be notable, such as Ronald McDonald. In this case, if we look at the significant coverage generated from this one commercial, we find widespread discussion in news and blogsphere alike, showing that there is significant interest in the topic.  The coverage goes beyond the NFL and sports world into business and lifestyle news, such as AdWeek: Leon Sandcastle Signs Fake but Funny Endorsement Deal With Under Armour, USA Today: The True Identity of Leon Sandcastle, plus this mention in GQ--all reliable sources.  This is a clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the merge after a month had gone by and there was no discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Deion Sanders, of which this is just an alternate identity without sufficient notability to stand on its own. —Lowellian (reply) 01:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe that Sanders owns the rights to the character. If merge is the final destination, it should be to National Football League that owns the character rights.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Sanders not owning the right to the character means that we can't merge this article here. I aslo am not aware of any policies or guidelines that call for this. The redirect should go to the most relevant article and in this case it's Sander's not the NLF article--174.95.111.89 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Deion Sanders. After reading the above, I think it's worthy of a mention on Deion's page because it's reliably sourced, but not its own. It's a one off TV commercial that got a little bit of coverage. I don't see any evidence of lasting notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Question what kind of evidence of "lasting notability" do you expect to see after four months for anything? Further, notability is not temporary so once achieved the subject is notable.  I contend that there is no guideline nor policy requiring that "lasting" notability must be achieved before a subject is notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Whatever the bar is on fictional characters, at the end of the day, it appears to me that he meets WP:GNG, which is in and of itself enough to satisfy notability requirements. Go   Phightins  !  02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Paul and his sources. Having coverage from in sources as big as USA Today is a pretty big indicator of meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me   19:38, 29 April 2013 (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.