Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Santos


 * 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 redirect to List of The West Wing characters. There is also a suggestion to redirect to The West Wing, a possible change of target can be discussed on the article's talk page. There appears to be disagreement about whether or not there is content to be merged, so I have left the current content in the article history for possible merging. Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Matt Santos

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As in several recent AfD's, like Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa, does not meet WP:GNG, please see WP:NOTPLOT. Was redirected several times, which is probably the best outcome, but an editor insists on reverting the redirect.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject passes GNG, which is the pertinent notability policy for fictional characters, per discussion of subject in secondary sources cited in article, e.g. see Politico and The Guardian. The character's biography is inherently related to plot descriptions, and excessive plot descriptions can be cleaned up without redirecting the entire article. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or redirect. Politico article is very short (three paragraphs), classified as a blog and mentions the subject in 3 sentences. I am not sure it qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. The Guardian coverage is a bit better, although I am not seeing that much analysis there. But that's still is a bit short of two good, in-depth sources. Possibly more sources exist but they haven't been found; my BEFORe showed some mentions in passing in academic sources and a possibly in-depth coverage in a Spanish book chapter (?) that I cannot access to verify so it cannot be assumed to be in-depth until someone actually reads it). In the current state the article is pure plotfancruft, and if it is not improved, I suggest redirecting this to the List of The West Wing characters for failing WP:NOTPLOT, with no prejudice to restoring this at any point if someone adds a reception/analysis section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. ––FormalDude  (talk)  02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and clean-up. A lot of this is WP:OR and unsourced. The other sources are unreliable or short. It might make sense to write a summary paragraph and merge it to the list of characters, and improve that list. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm assuming that List of The West Wing characters is the proposed Merge/Redirect target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect, I would have said merge but there's nothing to merge. The problem with this article is that instead of discussing Santos as a character, it treats him as a real-life personage and simply presents an enormous biography and plot summary. If you compare to the Guardian article you will see the difference: the Guardian article looks at the relevance of Santos as a mirror to real politics, comparing him to Obama and discussing the scriptwriter's intentions. Had the article's author found a few more sources like the Guardian, and written about the character's meaning from outside, instead of writing as though we were all in the character's universe, we'd have an article, and not a piece of fan-cruft. I'd have no prejudice against someone doing the job properly, if further sources emerge, but until then: TNT. Elemimele (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect As mentioned by Elemimele above, there isn't much to merge that is sourced or written in an out-of-universe style. Joyous! | Talk 22:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. What a destructive proposal. There was a tremendous amount of published critical commentary about the Santos character, in newspapers and magazines, during the TV series's final years. The fact that Google does a terrible job of indexing them doesn't vitiate it's existence. A Google Books search shows the existence of more than enough critical commentary to sustain the article, even if the complete texts are not consistently on line. This enterprise of reducing Wikipedia to subjects which are easy to research on line is painfully foolish, and should be discouraged. Vivian 166.159.85.90 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you would actually link to the sources you found, your argument could carry some weight. Right now it's just WP:THEREARESOURCES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge There is some coverage on google books, but not enough to sustain a separate article. There is certainly enough material to cover this character somewhere, per WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to The West Wing. There isn't much sourced to merge but the few sources can be used to source what little is there in the main character list. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) for a dedicated article. czar  16:37, 5 February 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.