Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Grossman


 * 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 Fargo (film). ‑Scottywong | [chatter] || 05:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Stan Grossman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Character is obviously not notable for its own article, and fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Notability guidelines are not determined by article content and GNG is not determined by the quality of sourcing in the article. There's no "obviously" to it, would you mind explaining why the several copy/paste nominations you just filed fail WP:GNG?  Dark knight  2149  02:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per the above statement. Also noting that this article is more referenced than many of the other Fargo character pages. Cassandra872 (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pages for other Fargo characters are notable because they're mostly on main characters. Right now, we're talking about a minor one. Now with references: 1 doesn't work (inaccessible), 2 and 3 are the same ref. and along with 4, only talk about the character's mentioning in season three. Finally, when you click number 5, the page reads "This site can’t be reached", and 6 only mentions the character for one sentence. With all in this in mind, this article is clearly WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:GNG, and is WP:PLOTONLY. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * GNG is not determined by the sources in the article or by article content (it's determined by the existence of sources). Secondly, simply declaring something fancruft tells us nothing (it's the equivalent of saying "Keep. It's valuable"). Even a minor fictional character can be considered notable if there is enough coverage. Lastly, PLOT is a writing guideline, not a WP:DELREASON and generally warrants a rewrite template unless the article isn't notable or rewritable to begin with (which hasn't established here).  Dark knight  2149  18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you keep saying what the policies are not, but here's the question, looking at the article itself, does it look notable to you? The article is on a minor character in which most of the sources are on a mere mention of the character's name. The two "reviews" are either inaccessible or unrelated to the character itself, and most of the article is WP:PLOTONLY. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an AfD is to establish why something cannot be kept and it's typically not a first resort (WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE). When filing an AfD, the purpose of the rationale is to establish why the subject of the article isn't keepable. The problem is your rationales are making it seem as though you looked at the current state of the article and decided "This needs to be deleted." I'm not familiar with Fargo but the onus is on the nominator to cite criteria for deletion and establish for everyone why a topic isn't sustainable or that it lacks (the existence of) coverage.  Dark knight  2149  19:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a minor character! The article clearly fails WP:GNG as it's not notable for its own page. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know that it sounds weird if you haven't done a lot of AfD discussions, but "common sense" arguments like "it's a minor character" don't actually count. There are minor characters in well-studied works, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet, who get a lot of coverage despite being minor characters. On the other hand, there are major characters in lots of notable works who don't get a lot of coverage, like Harriet M. Welsch in Harriet the Spy, who isn't notable for her own page because nobody talks specifically about that character. Fargo is a pretty well-studied work, so it's possible for a minor character to be notable. It depends on what the reliable sources say. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "...who get a lot of coverage." Stan Grossman does not have a lot of coverage. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I see some analysis of Stan's role in Fargo in The Philosophy of the Coen Brothers (2008), and similar analysis in Seeing the Light: Exploring Ethics Through Movies (2012). — Toughpigs (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Current coverage seems limited to trivial mentions. What's currently in the article also seems improperly weighted, in particular the part cited to the "Observer" article being longer than the actual sentence fragment from the article. TTN (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fargo (film). I share concerns about why this article was nominated; in the future the nominator should indicate a Before search for sources was made before nominating. That said, looking at the sources provided I don't see a level of detail that would pass GNG, and I agree he is indeed a minor character. I'm a bit surprised the main characters from the movie don't have articles, as there is a lot of scholarly analysis about the film and the Coen brothers, but I don't think there is enough about this particular character. Rhino131 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant parts of reception to the two movies the character appears in, the reception is very in passing and more related to the actor's performance than to any analysis of the character itself. OTherwise, it fails NFICTION/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:19, 27 October 2020 (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.