Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandor (fictional character) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Dracula's Daughter.  MBisanz  talk 03:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandor (fictional character)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - previous CFD closed no consensus. Those in favor of keeping the article noted the "sources" that were added in the course of the AFD. To repeat my analysis of those sources: ''Two of the sources, Kane and Clute, merely confirm the existence of the character. The Benshoff reference is about two sentences out of a 328 page book and is used to identify the actor who played the character. The Humphries is also two sentences, out of a 224 page book. The Willis is a description of the character as "incredible-looking". The Leeper website has no indication of its reliability as a source and again is a single sentence.'' Our notability guideline specifically states that simple passing mentions of a subject in a larger work are insufficient to establish independent notability, and all of the "sources" held up as establishing the notability of this character separate from the single film in which he appears are simple passing mentions. In bringing the article Dracula's Daughter to Good Article status, I reviewed these six sources as well as dozens if not hundreds more and none of them mention this character beyond noting his existence. None of them establish any cultural impact of the character, none of them offer out-of-universe perspective, none of them indicate any scholarly or critical attention paid to the character, none of them say anything other than a variation on "Her assistant was named Sandor and he wasn't very nice." More than two months have gone by and no new sources have come to light to establish notability. Merging is unnecessary because "Sandor (fictional character)" is a highly improbable search string and there is nothing in this article that is not already covered in the film article. A simple note at Sandor (disambiguation) with a link to the film is more than sufficient. Otto4711 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Minor character in a single mid-importance film does not warrant a separate article. Agree with nominator's rationale as to why a merge is unnecessary. JulesH (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Dracula's Daughter Sandor (disambiguation) per 23skidoo (below). I don't think an seldom-used redirect hurts anything, and think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to WP:N deletions. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Dracula's Daughter anything that isn't already covered there (I know the nominator says there isn't anything, but I'm just being certain). I agree adding a link on the disambiguation page works, and but this particular article title should be a redirect to that disambiguation and not to the movie article given I know of at least one other fictional character of the name (from the Bond film the Spy Who Loved Me). General consensus appears to be that one-time supporting characters don't warrent their own articles unless there is substantial coverage or if they are widely known (such as, say, Renault in Casablanca). 23skidoo (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that. Changed my !vote. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple fictional characters with the name Sandor, then maintaining this as a redirect creates ambiguity. The best solution IMHO is to list every such character on the existing dab page with a link back to the source of the character. Prompted searching gives Sandor as the first suggestion and Sandor (disambiguation) as the second. Keeping this as a third choice is unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to a disambiguation creates ambiguity? -- Explodicle (T/C) 03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Someone looking for a specific fictional character named "Sandor" will be misled by a redirect called "Sandor (fictional character)". Otto4711 (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pointing the user in the right direction is always preferable to sending them to the search page. If they're redirected to the disambiguation, they'll see multiple fictional Sandors listed, and pick the one they want. There is nothing confusing or misleading about that. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They will be pointed in the right direction by searching for "Sandor" and ending up at either Sandor or Sandor (disambiguation). Otto4711 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion about either of those potential searches - it's about Sandor (fictional character). You might not think it's a likely search, but three of us do, and our inclusion guideline for redirects (WP:R item #5) says that's enough. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point still stands unrefuted that both of those searches will appear before this one will. There is no point in maintaining this as a redirect because the suggested target will appear in a search before the redirect will. The purpose of redirects is to aid in navigation and this does not aid in navigation. And again, since there are multiple fictional characters named Sandor, keeping this is misleading. "Someone finds it useful" is IMHO a horrible standard. If I find, for example, Bad president a useful redirect to George W. Bush, should I be allowed to make it? If I find That guy in the Star Wars movies who grows up to be Darth Vader and is played by Hayden Christensen a useful redirect to Anakin Skywalker should I set it up? All kinds of things that someone somewhere found useful at least once get deleted at WP:RFD every day. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try to stay on topic; straw man arguments like "Bad president redirects to George W. Bush" aren't going to get us anywhere. I don't quite understand what you're saying - you know what people are going to type into the search box? -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that people looking for a fictional character named Sandor are going to type S-a-n-d-o-r into the search box, yes. And that will give them the prompts for Sandor (which will lead them to Sandor (disambiguation)) and they will also get the prompt for Sandor (disambiguation). Both of them come up before Sandor (fictional character) in a prompted search so, assuming the person is not a drooling idiot, s/he will select either Sandor or Sandor (disambiguation). Having a second redirect that serves no purpose but to send them back to a page that is prompted before the redirect is pointless. And I'm sorry, but my counter-examples are perfectly valid as examples of redirects that someone somewhere might find useful. Otto4711 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to keep in mind that not all users have a browser that supports that feature, but redirects don't care what browser you use. There's a good chance someone searching for the term might very well type in "Sandor (fictional character)" because they don't get a popup. Let's say we keep the redirect, and someone clicks on that prompt - they go to the disambiguation page, which tells them there are multiple fictional characters named "Sandor". Since you're making the assumption they are not a drooling idiot, they'll click on the link they want. -- Explodicle (T/C) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bad president" is offensive (WP:R #3) and could just as easily point to any president of anything. The Darth Vader search is silly, much longer, and obviously less likely. -- Explodicle  (T/C) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * delete all mentions apparently trivial, non-notable, and 70 years old. Agree with nom that merge is unneccesary. Salt for good measure (vampires are hard to kill).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A topic does not get less notable as it gets older. Also, we shouldn't salt as a preemptive measure. -- Explodicle (T/C) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean garlic? I don't believe salt has any effect on vampires. JulesH (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in this case, I think this meets the exception of beings sufficiently widely known; it's furthermore a distinctive name, a reasonable search term, and an adequately sourced article article. DGG (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:N, which states that notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources". Note further that significant coverage means that "sources address the subject directly in detail" and that coverage is "more than trivial". Finally note that "one sentence mention[s]" in larger works are specifically noted as not establishing notability. In light of this, please explain how this article, which relies on one- and two-sentence mentions in multi-hundred page books, is "adequately sourced". Please also explain how something's having a "distinctive name? qualifies it for a Wikipedia article in the absence of reliable sources, with reference to the relevant policy or guideline. As for being a "reasonable search term", no one is going to type "Sandor (fictional character)" into the search box and even if they intended to, typing "Sandor (" would get them to Sandor (disambiguation) which would then link them to Dracula's Daughter. Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:RFD, which says that if someone finds a redirect useful, it should not be deleted. That you find it useless is irrelevant. DHowell (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my comments up-thread, in which it is demonstrated that someone somewhere could find any possible redirect "useful" and that this is not a barrier to deleting redirects per WP:RFD. Otto4711 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, or merge and redirect to Dracula's Daughter. I don't think it should redirect to Sandor (disambiguation), as there is only one fictional character mentioned in that disambiguation page. Also, there is more information from reliable sources than what is included in the article; for example the fact that Herbert Marshall was the first choice to play this role in the film; see here and here. Verifiable information on possibly non-notable subtopics of a notable topic should be at least merged, not deleted. DHowell (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That there may be a sentence or two in other sources beyond the four or five sentences already sourced does not establish notability. A handful of one sentence mentions do not equal "significant coverage". Otto4711 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as article meets our notability guidelines by being verified in multiple published reliable secondary sources that contain significant enough out of universe information to write sections on Scholary intepretation, Reception, and Comparison to other characters as confirmed by Google News, Google Books (even mentioned in the published book titled The Encyclopedia of Fantasy as well as at least one other published encyclopedia, what is good for a paper encyclopedia is surely good for us as after all our First pillar is that we contain elements of specialized encyclopedias), Google Scholar, and Amazon.com. Article has accordingly improved considerably since it was first nominated a short time ago: compare here.  A good number of editors and readers think the article is a valid search term that is worth checking out and worth editing.  As the article is neither a copywright violation nor libelous, there is no pressing or serious need to delete its edit history.  A merge can and should be discussed on the article's talk page.  Even if Dracula's Daughter is a good article that still does not somehow preclude coverage of its characters in separate articles.  We can have an article on a film about Dracula, but the character is still sufficiently notable for a separate article as well.  While obviously Sandor is not Dracula, he is still covered in out of universe context in multiple publications and is thus worthy of expanded coverage in a separate article.  I reckon others can probably even do more with the article than I was able to, but again, even if one wants to make a case for a merge and/or redirect, I am not see a compelling case for a redlink or serious need to delete the article's good faith edit history.  Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:57, 19 January 2009 (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.