Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Xanatos

David Xanatos

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE shows that most of the sources were from the film, except this [1]. But, that is not enough for the character. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic does not need to be the main subject to "count" with regard to notability. In my view, the mentioned Polygon article, this IGN article and the appearance in The Tropes of Fantasy Fiction, together with briefer appearances like here, establish enough material and commentary to fulfill the requirements of WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, and therefore establish notability. Daranios (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Despite the existence of a great Polygon article for SIGCOV, the character doesn't pass GNG with the demonstrated sources. A compromise would be merging him to a list of characters. The trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing and isn't super well-known outside of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: If the trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing, then why does it appear in secondary sources, including academic ones? Daranios (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing and getting heavy discussion are two different things. But if the trope is indeed discussed heavily in scholarly sources, it might merit an article on the trope itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it's "discussed heavyly", but it is discussed to some degree. Which again is different from being purely a TVTropes thing in my view. So I think it would be quite fitting to include the trope to a degree within the article here, which in turn means there is enough material to constitute a non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet but concurring with Daranios here. If the concept is receiving actual discussion then it is a valid topic to cover in the article, regardless of potential origin. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, per Daranios. DrBat (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]