Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz (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 no consensus , and none is likely to form here when the open question is keep or redirect. And if the latter, whereto. Since there is not going to be consensus for deletion of the content or the material under the redirect, this discussion can continue on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 01:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are trivial mentions, but nothing to build an article that is WP:NOT just WP:PLOT details. Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. Jontesta (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GScholar hits include...

  Hinten, Marvin D. "Old Narnia Is True": Allusions in" Prince Caspian." The Lamp-Post of the Southern California CS Lewis Society 27, no. 3 (2003): 3-11.

  NeshmyJeloud, Basim, and Hameed Mani’Daikh. "Myth in CS Leiws’s Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia." [1] It's clear that this is a paper, it's not clear that it was actually published in a journal.

  Hanton, Chandler. "The Tragedy of Caspian: CS Lewis and His Trauma." (2022). MA Thesis.

  Boyer, Steven D. 2010. “Narnia Invaded.” Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity 23 (6): 30–36. Picks apart the movie adaptation of Miraz, among other things.

  Louis Markos. 2010. Restoring Beauty : The Good, the True, and the Beautiful in the Writings of C.S. Lewis. Colorado Springs, CO: IVP Books. Multiple sections analyze Miraz.

  That's enough for now. These are a smattering of things I find in Google Scholar and EBSCO; I don't claim that they're the best, but they are clearly sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources by Jclemens.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Miraz. I'll AGF Jclemens analysis of sources and that there is WP:SIGCOV. However, the article we have is 100% fancruft (pure plot summary), with zero assertion of significance and pretty much unreferenced. While the plot summary could be retained for the proper article, as things stand, redirecting this to the plot summary in the man article (which has a section for that character, if brief) will be at no loss to the reader. I'd be happy to change my vote to keep if a section, even shor, on analysis/reception is added. But as long as this is just a fan-wiki level plot summary, a softdelete redirect (keeping the content in the page history) will suffice. Letting this fancruft remain without improvement is a disservice to Wikipedia, suggesting to people that we are no better than a fan wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article needs work, but there are sources addressing both the suggested problems with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PLOT. In addition to those listed by Jclemens, the current version of the article as well as the previous deletion discussion feature one secondary source each which has non-trivial non-plot information. Solution to problems which can be solved is not deletion. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussion, plenty of sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (possibly merge) to Prince Caspian. My recollection is that he only occurs in one the novels, so that the target should be that book, not the whole series. Material on the literary sources might be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's correct; Miraz is the chief antagonist of Prince Caspian and a merger or redirection to any other topic wouldn't make remote sense. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - In its current condition, information on the character should be included as part of whatever larger topic makes the most sense. If the above sources are in fact significant coverage and cause too much weight to be placed on the character, it can be restored at that time. The existence of sources does not inherently mean a separate article is needed, and the current condition of the article means nothing important will be lost in reducing its scope for the time being. TTN (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Article has been expanded with IGN, NYT, and SFGate RS'es on Sergio Castellitto as Miraz in the 2008 film. None of the three RS'es I used were previously mentioned in this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Piotrus is that enough for you? I stuck to online sources so that you don't need to AGF about the extent or nature of the content. If it's not, what else would you like to see? Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens If you mean if this is enough for a rediect/merge to Prince Caspian then yes. As for the stand-alone article, I don't think SIGCOV is met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge per Peterkingiron. None of the sources are really focused on the character, but maybe there are a few sentences to add to Sergio Castellitto / The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Archrogue (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Prince Caspian - All of the sources I can see in searches, including the ones that have been added to the article since the beginning of this AFD, are simply plot summaries that recite his role in the plot (which is already covered in plot summary section in the main article on the book) or brief mentions of the character in overall discussions/reviews of the book or movie. The sole exception to this of the added citations is simply a short blurb announcing the casting of the role in the film. None of this is sufficient significant coverage to support an independent article. As, established above, the character only plays a role in a single book, that book would be the most appropriate target for a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Did you also check out Milton, Spenser and the Chronicles of Narnia: Literary Sources for the C.S. Lewis Novels, pages 51-54, the comparisons of Miraz with Jadis and established literary characters of Spenser, Milton, and Shakespear? Daranios (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full preview is not available for those pages, but yes, I did check out what was available in the preview as seen here. And I still hold that it is not significant enough coverage to support an independent article - that single sentence it is being used as a citation for is about the extent of it. It is certainly the best of the sources included in the article by far, as the other three are flat out useless as far as establishing notability for the character, but an article can't be built around a single decentish source, and that single sentence can be easily moved over the character list of the main Prince Caspian article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: "The main elements that make Miraz a villain are his ursurpation and his refusal to accept the spritual, namely Aslan. Such rebellion and apostasy are both evident in Milton's Satan and his followers. ... Miraz certainly commits crimes against humanity and a family member. In a sense, this connects him to the rebellion of Satan..." seems not to be in what we already have. Neither is that the author thinks him an inferior villain character to Queen Jadis despite male gender often being equated with more power. Daranios (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Did you check out Restoring Beauty: The Good, the True, and the Beautiful in the Writings of C. S. Lewis, especially p. 76? Daranios (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source is OK, but honestly still does not have a whole lot of actual analysis on Miraz specifically that goes beyond summarizing his role in the plot. The text on page 75 and the top of 76 regarding Miraz is basically just retelling his role and actions in the book, and the only real piece of analysis on page 76 is the couple of sentences starting with "Miraz is a villain... not because his beliefs differ from those of Caspian, but because he desires to crush all belief to achieve his ends." As I said in my initial comment, there is, of course, discussion of him in overall reviews or analysis of the book and/or movie as a whole. But none of it is really significant coverage of Miraz specifically that demonstrates that he passes the WP:GNG in his own right, separate from the overall notability of Prince Caspian. Prince Caspian is notable and has many sources regarding it, but having some brief discussions of Miraz in those sources in the context of a wider discussion of the book does not automatically equate to Miraz being independently notable, nor requiring a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The question seems to be whether the sources provided by those advocating Keep are enough to establish notability for this fictional character or if the page should be redirected instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment - The sources added to the article are extrodinarily trivial, a casting announcement and two reviews that mention the character in brief passing mention. The sources brought up in the AfD are stronger, but still fall short of meeting GNG. There's really not a lot to add to the article without relying on an abundance of quotebombing, which really doesn't make for good article content for a character. Prince Caspian itself is quite lacking, so it'd make much more sense to use these sources to bolster that article. It's not like it cannot be split out again if it later turns out the character can meet GNG and the weight of the character proves to be too much for the main article. TTN (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather, what we have here is a general moving of the goalposts. The original nomination is so ridiculously wrong as to be either a WP:CIR failure or an outright falsehood. The parade of "Oh, but that's not ENOUGH coverage" combined with Piotrus' reneging on his pledge to change his vote if a reception section was added should be plenty sufficient evidence that there's not a single good-faith opposition to this being a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article I just looked at still doesn't have a "reception" section. Please get your facts right before accusing others of malpractice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the section title mattered. I assumed you capable of noting the added content involved critics reacting to the movie portrayal of the character, without needing the section title to be exactly and only titled "reception." Regardless, there's substantially more there now. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. Agree that the coverage is either off topic or WP:PLOT. What little coverage is more on topic for the parent article about Prince Caspian. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Prince Caspian, the novel, is clearly notable for an article, and sources presented make that clear, if there were any doubt; but the characters are not themselves notable for seperate articles. There is no good evidence that Miraz is a subject beyond being the Prince Caspian novel character. I don't think merge is appropriate as Prince Caspian contains information on the character and the article would not be improved by the other information it does not contain (e.g. casting of the character). I don't object to a redirect to the Prince Caspian article, but it seems unlikely it is actually required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2022 (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.