Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandor (fictional character)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 November 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandor (fictional character)

Delete - this character is not notable outside the film in which he appears. No evidence of cultural impact, no appearances in other media, article consists largely of plot summary which is covered at Dracula's Daughter and original research speculation about where his relationship to his mistress falls in the scope of master-servant relationships. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Otto's pretty much said it all. I'll just add that there is virtually no sourcing and I can't find much on Google beyond passing mentions. Reyk _YO! 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep see below as there isn't enough for a separate article. (there may be already enough in the main article though). However, I wouldn't assume the speculation cant be sourced, until I checked all the reviews. (but unless there's a major discussion, it still isn't apropriate for a separate article). DGG (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically of the unsourced material are you suggesting be merged that would not throw the article out of balance in favor of this character? If you take a look at Dracula's Daughter, you can see how much I've expanded it over the last several days. I've checked literally dozens of sources online and off and there is nothing about Sandor or the relationship between the two characters that isn't already noted in the film article. Otto4711 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep; it seems someone very quickly found 6 sources, some of which seem pertinent. Furthermore, if the sources you found discuss this particular character, and they seem to, then there would be firm reason by our standard criteria to have an article. Otherwise you'd have to be saying, a/ challenged as unsourced. b/sources found by two editors c/ delete anyway, regardless of the amount of sourcing. I don;'t think you mean to make a general statement that characters in fiction never get articles, regardless of the sources and what they say, because I think you know there would be very strong consensus against that. And I note your own sources would seem to contradict your own assertion that the discussion of the relationship is just OR. DGG (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now. Two of the sources, Kane and Clute, merely confirm the existence of the character. The Benshoff reference is about two sentences out of a 328 page book and is used to identify the actor who played the character. The Humphries is also two sentences, out of a 224 page book. The Willis is a description of the character as "incredible-looking". The Leeper website has no indication of its reliability as a source and again is a single sentence. I checked all six of these sources and dozens more before making the nomination and in the course of working on the article and they are all trivial passing mentions that do not establish the independent notability of the character. And yes, I will stand firmly and unswayingly by the proposition that the mere mention of a fictional character in a book does nothing to establish that the character is notable independent of the film from which the character is drawn. I can find you dozens if not hundreds of sources that confirm the existence of this character. You know as well as I do that mere existence does not equal notability and you ought to know as well as I that WP:N specifically states that mentions such as these are trivial. I never said that fictional characters never get separate articles so I have to wonder why you would even try to suggest that I ever said such a thing or anything like it. Our standard criteria for an article on a fictional character are found at WP:WAF, which states that "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources" and WP:GNG which requires "significant" (meaning "more than trivial") coverage in reliable sources. What sources, either that I found or that this other editor has found, reliably source the assertion that the way Sandor interacts verbally with the Countess is "more complex than a master-servant relationship would permit" or that permits such speculative comments as "We are left to ponder why he allowed himself to be strung along by the countess, the ultimate circumstances that would have resulted in her granting him his wish for immortality, and why she felt she could tell him of her desire to be free of vampirism without arousing his anger at feeling betrayed"? I know you're an extreme inclusionist, but honestly, aren't you a little embarrassed to be arguing in favor of this article? Otto4711 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable due to large number of sources, which also means it is not original research and as the article contains multiple sections rather than just covering plot it satisfactorily meets our inclusion criteria. Anyone who argues in favor of keeping this article should feel proud! :) --63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once again refer to WP:GNG which states clearly and explicitly that coverage must be more than trivial and challenge those in favor of keeping this article to address my points above regarding the triviality of the proffered sources. Note the examples given of significant and trivial sources: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial. and explain how these passing mentions of the character's name satisfy that criterion. Please explain how the proffered sources or any source establishes that the relationship between Zaleska and Sandor is "more complex than a master-servant relationship would permit" or the speculation about Zaleska's motives. And, someone's slapping three single-sentence "sections" on the end of the article is meaningful in establishing notability? Really? Can you point me toward the section of WP:N that supports that idea? Otto4711 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's argument; the fictional character's notability does not extend beyond his one appearance in Dracula's Daughter. From what I can tell from the article, the mentions are very trivial and do not support establishing the character's notability apart from the film. Any useful information should be incorporated at Dracula's Daughter. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (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.