Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Snell (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 keep. No prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Snell

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

Note: Previous AfD is here.

Insufficient material in secondary sources to establish notability Nightscream (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator There is nothing about this character that requires its own article independent of the article on the original novel Carrie, and those on its various media adaptations. Cullen328, who removed the AfD tag from the article, stated in her edit summary that "Several books discuss the character", and in a subsequent edit summary, after adding stated "article now has three sources". Let's look at those three sources: There is a passage that briefly mentions the character in the book that was cited as the first source in the article, and of the two new sources, we have one of the books, and a passage that even more briefly mentions her in another book that briefly mentions her, and a Daily Mail story that isn't about the character, but is about Judy Greer and Portia Doubleday, who play two other character. The Daily Mail story just briefly mentions Sue Snell, further down in the article, when it says, "But one of the girls, Sue Snell, played by Amy Irving in the film and Gabriella Wilde in the remake, feels sorry for her and persuades her boyfriend to take Carrie to the prom." That's it. Nothing else. I know of four newspaper articles in which my name appeared over the last 40 years, for various reasons. But that doesn't make me notable. This is not a character that is a major focus on secondary works about Carrie, as she has not transcended her origins as simply one character from a notable book, the way Bilbo Baggins has from The Hobbit, or Dumbledore from Harry Potter, or Falstaff from Henry V. Everything about her, including the material in the two new sources, can easily fit into the articles on the novel and the media adaptations. Nightscream (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator doesn't need to say delete, its understood. And you are the nom, so the per nom bit makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 03:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall seeing it done in other such discussions, and I don't see any harm it placing it before my explanation. Please do not strike any portion of my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs)

And it has caused the same confusions in other discussions as well, which is why it is discouraged. and should more properly and through common usage be part of your initial deletion nomination rationale.

However, it is hoped the closer will recognize it as an extension of your original deletion nomination and not "count" it as a supportive deletion !vote by some other editor. Perhaps you might modify the self-aggrandizing "per nom" to a more accurate as less controversial "as nom"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD states Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Dream Focus 10:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, "should refrain" does not equate to "must refrain", but you have brought up a point of courtesy to be remembered and applied. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I most certainly did not remove an AfD tag, which I would never do. I removed a PROD, which any editor is allowed to do for any good reason. "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted. The first objection kills the PROD." Opposition can certainly be expected when the article survived an AfD in 2008. I added two sources to the article yesterday. Rather than a brief mention, one of these, Hollywood's Stephen King] spends two full pages 31-33 in a detailed literary analysis of the character. Reasonable people can differ about whether the coverage I pointed out is significant enough. However, there are other sources that I have not yet had the opportunity to add to the article, and it is worth noting that this fictional character has appeared in a best-selling novel, two Hollywood films, a TV movie and a musical play that was performed in New York and London. The character is also in a film in production now. I believe that the character meets the General notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 17. Snotbot t • c » 01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator, please link to the 2008 AfD debate, which closed as "Keep". Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a problem cause by how it was listed this second time.. so I just fixed it so it is easier to see and find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the link, I just tried to follow the procedure for deletion nomination that I had done before. Obviously I messed up somewhere, because as you know, the original discussion page-to-article link did not work, so I don't know where the link to the 2008 discussion was supposed to be, or how to have created it.

As or the "prod", that's what I was referring to. I've come to understand over the years that the html placed at the top of the articles are variously called "templates", "tags", etc. Sorry if my jargon wasn't perfect. Nightscream (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the arguments in the first AfD still hold true 5 years later, and partially for the irony value of agreeing with Otto4711's past keep vote. (For those of you not familiar with his history, feel free to ping me on my talk page.) Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:NRVE. As provided at first AFd of 3 years ago, sources are available showing this character discussed and analyzed in multiple independent book sources... and in a manner that is more-than-trivial in nature.[1] These need not be used to source the article, just so as long as they are available. While we do not have nor require an article on every fictional character in every film, it is common sense and common practice that we can and do have articles on those fictional elements that meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the discussion and analysis is more than trivial, then why is almost none of it in the article? All there is in the article is a mention of how/why King used her to tell Carrie's story, and mention of a critic's reaction to the shock effect of her sudden death in the 1999 film sequel. Where's the real-world impact of her character? The character's legacy? Its effect on culture? Literary analysis? Psychological analysis? Almost everything in the is just explanation of her actions in the primary sources. WP:Notability states: "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."

Sources that establish notability need not be used to source the article, just so as long as they are available? That's absurd. Of course articles should have to cite the sources that provide notability. It's an integral part of Notability. Again, WP:Notability states: "Reliable" [sources] means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Verifiability and reliability do not refer to sources that are somewhere "out there" that are "available". It refers to sources that are cited in the article. How can reader "verify" a source if he/she doesn't know what the source is? It's inane. Nightscream (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but developed by many others who did not think it "inane", we have our guideline on WP:Notability, within which is WP:NRVE, which explains "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable", clarifying "editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation", a not-so-inane concept that follows the precepts of editing policy and hopefully clarifies confusions, through it telling us that topic notability is dependent upon sources being available for use through regular editing, and not dependent upon available sources being used within the article. The primary notability guideline requires sources be available, but it nowhere states that they be used.

As for the why more of the available sources have not been used in the article itself.. that would seem a matter for regular editing over time, and not one requiring deletion. Simply put... with multiple sources being available, we have notability. Addressing (requested) sourcing in an issue we may address over time and through regular editing. If any statement within an article is worrisome to an editor not willing to fix the issue themselves, it could be tagged with a "^{[citation needed]}" tag so as to draw attention from those others willing to deal with it themselves. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A subsequent passage in WP:NRVE that you did not include in your quote says, "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Someone posted a link to a list of books on Google where she is mentioned, but merely being mentioned is not notability. An article has to explain why the topic is notable. Merely being in books or movies doesn't make a character deserving of its own article.

Casliber says below "Two movies and play. Should be plenty of commentary out there." Really? The Patil sisters from the Harry Potter books appear in five books and six movies, and are important members of Dumbledore's Army and Harry's circle of friends, who risk their lives by fighting in the climatic Battle of Hogwarts at the end of the series. Should they get their own article? Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major character in a book, two movies and play. Should be plenty of commentary out there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As coverage has been found, I believe this now meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, nominator has also prodded another character from this series, Chris Hargensen. Another character has previously been turned into a redirect by someone else. [2] If anyone sees coverage of them also, they might be worth keeping as well. Dream Focus 10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carrie (novel). There is coverage in independent sources, the only significant instance being in Hollywood's Stephen King. Even with the combined mentions from all the others sources it doesn't amount to more than a few sentences that could be included in the article. As WP:GNG requires significant content from multiple sources, the best solution is to include the significant content in an "analysis" section in the novel article, which deserves to be reinforced first before anything is split from it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Carrie (novel), as there is some indication of importance of Snell, but not enough to justify an entire article. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:12, 17 June 2013 (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.