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)[reply]

Stan Grossman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Stan Grossman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: 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). Darkknight2149 18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Darkknight2149: 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)[reply]
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. Darkknight2149 19:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[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.
More