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 no consensus. Split between "keep" and "merge". In either case, there is no consensus to delete the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is WP:FANCRUFT that belongs in the Queen's Gambit fandom wiki rather than wikipedia. Most of the content is specific to the TV series (the novel gets only a passing mention). The extensive "biography" is already well covered by the plot summary in the main article for The Queen's Gambit. The subject of the article is not independently notable from the novel and TV series and is best dealt with by these articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of sourcing for real-world commentary about the character. I see what the nom means about there being a bit too much detail here, but that can be solved through regular editing, and deletion is simply not warranted because the GNG is clearly met by the sourcing already in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jclemens. I'm the editor who advocated Merge below. Since you are presently the main (only, in fact, if we discount banned users and sockpuppets) editor advocating Keep, could I ask you to elaborate a bit on "plenty of sourcing for real-world commentary about the character", specifically taking my misgivings in mind: "Sure, the name "Beth Harmon" is bandied about in several reliable publications, but in the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are either about the actress playing her or about real-world chess players compared to her." I would like to hear your arguments why a stand-alone article is better than a section in the main article, even though it appears likely it will remain a permastub only. I would find your feedback useful to guide my thinking on future AfDs. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JClemens is a regular at Afd discussions so his opinion will carry some weight. To be honest if this were closed tomorrow it would probably be a "no consensus" keep. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, MaxBrowne2. To CapnZapp's point, it is no great Wikipedia tragedy if this gets merged into the QG minieries article, because this character does not exist outside of that, nor would anyone seek to understand this character outside of Taylor's portrayal of her. Having said that, if the options are keep or not keep, the coverage is sufficient for a keep, and a merge can be done by editorial consensus rather than enforceable action via AfD. But having said that, commentary's on Taylor's portrayal of Harmon meet the GNG as independent, non-trivial mentions in RS of the article topic, and that is sufficient. Permastub vs. fleshed out article isn't a reason for deletion, as even a stub can give more full nuance to an article than a section in an article on a parent topic constrained by WP:LENGTH. WP:SS is illustrative of how this can, and I would submit should, be handled. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, if the options are keep or not keep, the coverage is sufficient for a keep, and a merge can be done by editorial consensus rather than enforceable action via AfD. But the options aren't limited to keep or not keep. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
commentary's on Taylor's portrayal of Harmon meet the GNG as independent, non-trivial mentions in RS of the article topic If praise for the actor's portrayal of a character were relevant for an article on that character, yes. But I didn't think that to be the case. I would have thought an article on a fictional character would need sources that discuss that character, not its actor. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a merge can be done by editorial consensus rather than enforceable action via AfD this AfD is the result of the existence of the Beth Harmon article being discussed with no such consensus having emerged. Seems wasteful to first have this AfD decline taking action purely on technical grounds, only for its nominator to have to (hypothetically) go to a RfC. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Permastub vs. fleshed out article isn't a reason for deletion No, it is a reason to merge. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
even a stub can give more full nuance to an article than a section in an article on a parent topic constrained Sure, but we're not discussing the theoretical case, we're evaluating if this is the case here. CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, not sure why I bother. If JClemens is determined to keep his keep (as it were), and Max' prognosis seems accurate, then we're just wasting time. If I were you Max I'd withdraw the AfD (as nom). Then I'd heavily prune the article down to only the bits that really merit inclusion (by my earlier quick peek there were two(2) articles actually discussing the character), and then, when it is an obvious permastub, move that little content and turn the article into a section header redirect (with anchor). CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my objection was not so much to the existence of the article itself, but to the obvious fan perspective it was written from. I removed the entire biographical narrative, which simply duplicated material in the main Queen's Gambit miniseries article. I suppose a brief narrative section could be written which avoids any contradictions between the novel and the miniseries, e.g. simply mention that she was an orphan, since the father was dead rather than simply absent in the novel, and the mother didn't die in a car crash. I also removed the section on critical acclaim for ATJ's performance, which is about the actress rather than the character (but the refs were good and could be used in the QG miniseries article). If the article is deleted the section on Beth Harmon's inspiration is best included in the article on the novel, otherwise the present article is its natural home. The article could also perhaps have a section on differences between the TV series and the novel. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should copy your thoughts to Beth Harmon's talk page and then close up this shop. CapnZapp (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't want to close it prematurely. I raised it to get community feedback on how best to proceed, and I will accept whatever result comes of it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've already concluded this discussion isn't allowed to discuss anything more than "delete or not" (and that it will most likely result in "or not") instead of the far more useful discussion "should we merge and redirect, or are people coming up with enough material to sustain a stand-alone article". You'd think this would be a great place to have that discussion, but it really isn't if editors !vote against merge simply for procedural reasons. We need to have this exact same discussion AGAIN in a place where we can separate keeps that really are only !deletes from keeps that really are !merges. Asking people here to not !vote keep simply because there exists sources discussing Beth Harmon (since the real useful practical question isn't if there are ANY sources but ENOUGH sources) have been proven futile. Accepting whatever result only means you risk forestalling that discussion: I mean - this'll likely end in "no consensus". Don't misinterpret that as a consensus against merging. It only means we couldn't reach a consensus to delete. The real discussion is where editors claiming "significant coverage from reliable sources" are actually pressed on that, and asked "but is it enough for a stand-alone article?" There's a real possibility this AfD will hamper improvement of Wikipedia if editors asking that question in the near future will be accused of flogging a dead horse since the matter have already been discussed here. It has not. Here the discussion is artificially constrained, as amply explained by JClemens. CapnZapp (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Haleth. Stop trying to dominate the discussion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A disappointing reply. Accusing someone of dominating discussion is trying to shut someone up without having to detail why. Anyway, see you at the inevitable talk or merge discussion after this initial sparring match is over. Hopefully I don't have to say "told you so" because somebody tries to shut down that discussion with the argument "it was just discussed over at AfD". Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So CapnZapp, I've been participating in AfD discussions, off and on, for about 15 years. Some of my perspective may seem a bit archaic, but yes, I do believe sources discussing an performer's portrayal of a fictional character count towards that fictional character's notability. And yes, while AfD has the choice to opt for non keep/delete outcomes, WP:PEREN notes that AfD is not now, nor has it ever been, "Articles for Discussion". As such, you'll find I almost never opt for a non-keep !vote if keep is an option--not because I don't think merge is a viable option, but because I only think merges should be enforced by administrator action and community process when and if it is demonstrated that a standalone article would be in violation of our policies and guidelines. In other words, if you can't get the editors on the respective article talk pages to agree to a merge, you need to provide a pretty compelling case that they're wrong to get me to support an enforced merge. Again, not the end of the world if it happens, but I'm not going to support it, based on my reading of the sources. At the same time, if this discussion is closed as 'no consensus' I'm certainly not going to go to the talk page and argue it must not be merged, either. Does that make sense? Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very narrow interpretation of what I assume you're referring to (i.e. Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD). It seems bureaucratic in the extreme to me to have to nominate an article for each outcome separately if your point is "a standalone article doesn't serve Wikipedia's best interests" but where the specific outcome (delete/merge/redirect) is of lesser concern; potentially wasting everybody's time by having to have the same talk three times. In this case we will arrive at a result of no consensus despite there to me seems like a complete consensus from all three of us to merge the info and change the article into a redirect, simply thanks to you. I guess I'll part ways by reminding you of one fully compliant (and in this case very helpful) course of action you might consider in the future: that of not engaging. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page have the enough information to keep it as an article. However I agree that it needs some changes to make it original and not very extensive as it is. Regular editing can solve that problem in the character biography, but the page doesn’t needs to be deleted. Alvrix3104 (talk) 3:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC) — Alvrix3104 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.
In choosing between a faint Keep and borderline Delete, I'm going with Merge: Sure, the name "Beth Harmon" is bandied about in several reliable publications, but in the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are either about the actress playing her or about real-world chess players compared to her. Among the very few sources that are actually talking about the character Beth Harmon, I see one discussing her fashion style, and one discussing her love life. To me this suggests a much shorter section in the mother article (which btw definitely is The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) and not The Queen's Gambit (novel); I see nothing about the book character anywhere) is sufficient. Hence Merge. If this article is to be kept it needs to be massively pruned since it's currently 90% about other women than Harmon! CapnZapp (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that I found this in the notability guide for music (WP:NM): Wikipedia's goals include neither tiny articles that can never be expanded which links to the WP:PERMA essay. What this say is basically: Before reaching a consensus to keep this Beth Harmon article, please ensure you're not just creating a a permastub. After all, there likely won't be more seasons of the show. In the end, the essay's In some cases they might be merged to larger articles and redirected there seems like words of wisdom. CapnZapp (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)≈[reply]
Keep This has proven to be able to have an independent article and Anya Taylor's Carácter, become kind of popular. However I agree that maybe the article is maybe too extensive so I agree that maybe it need to be edited to ensure is independent and not copy paste from another page. I checked and the page has been already edited, but just delete a few things and it will be ok.Alox3108 (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)— Alox318 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Alox318 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Alvrix3104 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Keep The article has proven to be a le to have an office of their own. I agree that it needs to be edited to make the page more independent and prove that it can be able to have an independent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cath34M (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC) — Cath34M (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Cath34M (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Alvrix3104 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Merge to The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) as there is not enough significant coverage of the character itself to justify a separate article. P-K3 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the presence of significant coverage from reliable sources, and per reasoning by AfC reviewer on the talk page and from Jclemens. Whether there will be more episodes for the series is irrelevant when according to WP:NEXIST, we should consider whether there are further sources which have not yet been cited, if concerns are to whether this article will remain a WP:PERMASTUB. WP:NMUSIC is irrelevant to this discussion as the subject topic is not related to music in any way. Haleth (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) (which seems to be the primary article relating to the character) per WP:TWODABS, with a ((Redirect)) hatnote pointing to The Queen's Gambit (novel) for the discussion of the character as it appears in the novel. The character (or characters, depending how you look at it) has no significance or substantial coverage apart from the contexts of the miniseries and novel. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a subdiscussion semi-hidden above you might find interesting: #closeupshopCapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content here isn't just in-universe stuff, but also talks about inspirations for the character (from a 1983! source) and casting/production history. Also, since the character exists in both the novel and the show, there isn't really a comfortable way to merge this. It's far more convenient for there to be this page, where the encyclopedic information on Beth is gathered, rather than having the reader chase it across multiple pages. The sources demonstrate sufficient notability. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.