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. The option to merge can be discussed further at the article's talk page. Shimeru 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Graves

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — The character was the main co-protagonist of two movies and an animated series. The actor's performance in the first film won awards (Independent Spirit Award) and the film itself won a Cannes Film Festival award. Not sure how this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article may need a little work with regard to references; if so, send a note off to WikiProject View Askew (of which I am not a part). WCityMike 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - I can find no significant coverage of this fictional character on Google Books, Google News, or Google Scholar. The sources I can find only either state the name of the actor who portrayed the character or else a one-line character description. The best claim for the notability of this character is that Jeff Anderson won an Independent Spirit Award for his first portrayal of the character. While this does increase the notability of the character, it does not provide sufficient notability for an entire article on the subject. Neelix (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last movie starring the character is four years old; Google News is unlikely. The movie was pretty much nearly a two-person film between this and another character, and in and of itself won awards at Cannes and Sundance in addition to the character winning the Independent Spirit Award previously mentioned. With all due respect, I think your argument as to his supposed lack of notability is not strong. WCityMike 23:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google News has archives that go back much more than four years. Notability must be demonstrated by sources; this has not been done, nor do I believe it can be done. Neelix (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 132 mentions of the character in Google News Archive Search. Again, I think your argument as to non-notability is not strong. WCityMike 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The 132 mentions consist, as I have stated before, of naming the character in cast lists or providing one-line character descriptions. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage, defining significant coverage as sources that "address the subject directly in detail". These do not. Again, notability has not been demonstrated. Neelix (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not an accurate description of the results, and thus your rebuttal is false. WCityMike 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If you can find sources that "address the subject directly in detail," feel free to add them to the article. Neelix (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The subject, as one of the two primary characters in a one-setting film (in his first appearance) and as one of the two male leads in the second film, is addressed in detail in the linked-to sources. WCityMike 21:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged there is not significant third person information to cover the character. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having reviewed the Ghits, it's clear this character hasn't received significant coverage/analysis in external media and only returns name-checks, the lack of references in the article is further proof of this. This should be deleted like other askewniverse bios. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some sources here, with a more refined search. Some critical reception, like calling him a "smart-ass" but I don't know if it's enough. Give it time to find its WP:POTENTIAL. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:FICTION#Real-world notability which refutes WCityMike's rationale above. And I quote: "Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work. Even if a character plays a highly significant and "notable" role within the work, this does not make them notable for the purposes of Wikipedia." I think it would be pretty tenuous to claim that the Randal Graves character made a non-trivial artistic or cultural impact in the world. Articles on fictional characters should not just be a list of where they appeared and what actors portrayed them, they should discuss how the character made a cultural or artistic impact. If you can find reliable sources which discuss Randal Graves' cultural impact, now would be the time to produce them. SnottyWong talk 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One could argue the article for Scarlet O'Hara makes a poor showing of exactly how her character has had a non-trivial or cultural impact in the world. Mind you, I wouldn't try to delete Scarlett's article, and I would argue that her character has had a non-trivial or cultural impact upon the world, but it does a poor job of showing it ... as do, I think, a great, great majority of Wikipedia's articles about fictional characters. I think the phrasing in that cited guideline -- which is marked not only as a guideline, but as a proposed guideline -- is sufficiently imprecise and vague that it's not really a very useful ruler. (It is mostly useful for providing quotations to support AfD delete votes, not as a genuine guide for fictional characters' notability.) Clerks is a movie that's been awarded out the wazoo, is a significant cultural element, and this is one of two major characters who essentially comprise half of the movie's content (given its one setting and dialogue-only content). The movie has made a non-trivial artistic and cultural impact upon the world; Randal is quite literally half the movie. Thus, yes, the character has a non-trivial artistic and cultural impact. WCityMike 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep There is bio established guideline for the notability of fictional characters. The quotes above are from the MOS, which is not the accepted place for notability guidelines and the rules there have never actually met with consistent acceptance by the community. The part in the MOS remains there merely because is no agreement on what to change it to. Only a weak keep because from what is said about the series he does not seem to me like a really major character, nor am I certain the series is highly notable to the minor characters to be worth articles. Those factors are in practice the ones used in actual AfD decisions. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added some sources. I'm convinced that there are good sources out there. But would not object to renominating or merging at a later time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a non-admin, recommend closure as "no consensus". ----moreno oso (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~View Askewniverse~~ List of characters of View Askewniverse, limited sourcing. Abductive (reasoning) 04:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into View Askewniverse. There does not appear to be substantial coverage to validate a stand-alone article. Perhaps someone can create a separate Characters of View Askewniverse, wherein to include information on the main View Askewniverse protagonists.--Pink Bull 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters of View Askewniverse.--Pink Bull 21:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my merge target suggestion too. Abductive (reasoning) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (reiteration of earlier vote). As this was relisted, I'll merely reiterate my opinion above. The character was the main co-protagonist of two movies and an animated series. The actor's performance in the first film won awards (Independent Spirit Award) and the film itself won a Cannes Film Festival award. The nature of the film was such that the character was pretty much half of the film. There are 132 articles that reference the character. The evidence is fairly heavy on the side of this being an article which is weighty enough, verifiable enough, with sufficient references to stand on its own. WCityMike 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of building a consensus, I'd support a merge (my earlier !vote was weak keep). Someone could build up a section about this character based on better sources and spin it back out into an article at a later time. My first preference is still to keep it now and merge it later if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (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.