Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabeth (Percy Jackson) (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annabeth (Percy Jackson)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Annabeth (Percy Jackson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The author and the books are notable, but I think this article fails WP:BK under the category of derivative articles - it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book. In this case, the article consists entirely of original research whose only source is the books themselves. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We editors will work all around the article and promise to make this a GA within 2 months. Please don't delete this article. I'll add third-party sources tomorrow & work on it from Tuesday. If Annabeth's article will be deleted just because of lack of 3rd party sources, then I bet that over 10,000 should be deleted for the same reason (and half of those are not notable enough). I'll encourage users at PJTF to improve the article significantly. Pmlinediter  Talk 10:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To back up what I said, take a look here: Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. We editors are trying to build the article and if you nominate it for AfD just then, then it is impossible for us to improve the article. Thanks. Pmlinediter  Talk 10:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of WP:PJTF)[reply]
Comment It's not just the lack of third party sources. The article as it stands is completely in contradiction to WP:INUNIVERSE and consists entirely of the world's most extended plot summary. It needs three quarters of the content removing and some kind of real world perspective injecting to demonstrate that the character has acquired notability separate to the books. Reviews which just mention the name as part of a plot summary are not sufficient in my view. If there are reviews that comment on the character separately (and there may well be) then you need to add both the source and a commentary on what the source is saying. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this author or series at all, so I don't know if such sources exist - certainly nothing was done to improve the article in this respect after the first AfD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first four sources only mention Annabeth in passing in a plot summary. This suggests to me that the article should be shortened to two or three sentences and merged back into the article on the book series, as the character (as opposed to the author or the books) is not notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the next four sources, all are short reviews of one or other book, of which one appears to mention Annabeth in passing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response, and not in agreement with your assessment, but AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP and WP:Merge discussions belong on the article's talk page after a keep. Your initial arguments for deletion is not among those listed at WP:DEL, and seems that the alternatives at WP:ATD should have been discussed or considered... more so because WP:DEL indicates that concerns over page content are suposed to be discussed and resolved, without going straight to deletion. Further, length of description has immediate relationship to the book(s) in question. Perhaps if she were a character in one short book, a short summary would be suitable. However, she is a major character in The Lightning Thief, The Sea of Monsters, The Titan's Curse, The Battle of the Labyrinth, The Last Olympian, and the movie Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief based on the series. That much inuniverse content requires a summary directly in relationship with the information being presented for a reader's understanding. It's perhaps understandable that with the nearly 3 million articles on wiki no one improved this one since the last AfD. However, with Wiki having no WP:DEADLINE for perfecton, it would be prudent to encourage and discuss proactive improvement per WP:POTENTIAL rather than toss this one on the ash heap. With a talkpage discussion it can be decided if Cleanup requires a scalpel or a machete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 11:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that cleanup and merge do not belong in an AFD discussion. I listed it for the reasons stated, and because I could find no sources that would help me clean it up. The book's characters, unlike the books or the author, do not appear to have become notable in themselves. If those interested in keeping the article find those sources and rewrite, that would be one thing, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that these sources exist. I wait to be persuaded.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Elen of the Roads does not seem to understand this that deleting Annabeth's page will trigger a major dispute. For example, if you deleted Lyra Silvertongue's page, all editors of His Dark Materials will be enraged. Deleting Annabeth's page would trigger a similar reaction. Pmlinediter  Talk 11:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this is a reason not to delete it if the consensus were to be that it does violate WP:N??? Last time I looked, Wikipedia wasn't a fan club.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Pmlinediter. This article should not be deleted. Instead, suggestions should be made on how the article can be improved to meet WP:BK and how to get rid of original research in the article. Extremepro (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that there are reliable sources treating this character in sufficient detail to establish her notability. Have we sunk so low, MichaelQ, that child-submitted online "reviews" that happen to mention a character's name are to be considered reliable sources? Deor (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing but an extended plot summary, references provided give no indication that they will be able to source anything but more plot summary.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor component of fictional work. The two references in the article consist of a routine announcement of a casting decision in The Hollywood Reporter, and a French translation of the Hollywood Reporter announcement. The Percy Jackson series is notable, but, lacking references specifically about that character, a secondary character in it is not. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as major female character in book and film franchise covered in considerable out of universe context in numerous [Google News results. Coverage in so many reliable sources establishes the character's notability. Moreover, given that the character is the main female lead in a film and appearances in four published books it meets a common sense standard of notability. Also, this particular AfD is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Expanding_the_lower_threshold and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Here.27s_a_frightening_thought as well. Also, we should speedy keep given that a previous discussion closed as an unambiguous "keep" already. In any event, article is without any doubt improveable further than what I have alreadys tarted and clearly per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE worthy of at worst a merge and redirect, which we can always discuss as a compromise. Deletion is obviously not the solution here, so we need to consider if the right approach is a merge and redirect or improvement or rewrite, but that can be all be worked out on the article's talk page. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slightly misleading - the AfD isn't being discussed at all. The only thing within the AfD being referred to was the suggestion that the article could not be deleted even if not notable because the article editors would riot. And then only because I am trying to understand what the issues are that prevent a consensus on how notability applies to spinouts on characters etc. AFAIK, no-one from the fiction notability discussion is remotely interested in this AfD, other than as yet another gauge of consensus (or the lack thereof). They certainly haven't posted here, and I wouldn't expect them to.
As to your other point, the fact that the character appears in the film does not make it any more notable than it was in the book. The fact that they cast a female actor to play the character, does not make the character notable. The film isn't made, no-one knows if it's going to be the biggest thing since whatever, of if it's going to tank and go straight to dvd. WP:CRYSTAL There is nothing in the article that is worth keeping as far as I can see, but I've already said that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD being mentioned there means that there's a good potential participants from that discussion will carry over to here as happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray. Appearing in multiple works of fiction is a common sense measure of notability in that of the billions of characters in novels, only a fraction also appear in film, and as the main female lead in the film. The newly cited information is clearly mergeable to either a character list, article on the film, articles on the book series as a whole, etc. and thus per WP:PRESERVE, these are the options that we need to explore WP:BEFORE considering deletion, which we consider an extreme last resort for hoaxes, copy vios, etc., i.e. stuff that has no potential of any kind. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your concern, and really should have waited before referring to the AfD elsewhere. I have responded elsewhere re your suggestion to add the casting reference in this article to an article about the film version, but I don't think it alters the fact that the character is not currently notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please note that I am actively working to improve the article and as such, more sources and out of universe context are in the process of being added, which can be merged if needed elsewhere, such as at Percy_Jackson_film#Film_adaptation. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They could in my opinion more properly have been added to the film page to start with. I admire your tenacity however.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable character in fiction, that has appeared in multiple works, in film and books. There is certainly enough information about her to warrant her own article. Dream Focus 20:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this character notable in accordance with WP:GNP and WP:BK, which are the only actual policies involved here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNP is an essay. That makes it meaningless. WP:BK is a guideline, which are suggestions not something you absolutely have to follow. Neither are policies. Anyone can make an essay that says whatever they want, and the guidelines are constantly changing, and never decided by any significant percentage of wikipedia users. Dream Focus 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, nice dodge. Although did you really say that policies are meaningless, or am I reading too much into too short a comment? I have to say this discussion is fascinating. Reasons for deletion (which is a policy - it says "policy" right there on the top) says that a valid reason for deletion is Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). Now since as you so rightly point out WP:FICT is not a guideline, the guideline is either WP:BK or WP:N. If, as I believe you may have done, one argues that the Derivatives section in WP:BK is not relevant as a notability guideline, then the standard for characters from a book currently falls back on WP:N. When listed, this article certainly failed WP:N (and GCSE English, although that in itself would not of course be a reason for deletion - it could have and indeed has been written better) as it listed no sources whatsoever, not even citations for the book that the character was (at that point allegedly since no citations were offered) sprung from.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, it's useless to point to policies when the Article Rescue Squadron Extraordinaire whips into action. All one can do is quail before their mighty powers of obfuscation. Deor (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to get that feeling:) So many people quoting what I didn't say....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly keep your slanderous personal attacks to yourselves. Dream Focus 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case . Exceptions do, of course, exist—see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).
Which is not the reality. In fact, WP:FICT has failed three times to gain support, and unlike WP:BK, editors actually decided whether it was or was not a guideline first, and they have soundly rejected this view, three times. The edit history shows that the very first edit on WP:BK the sole editor had already proclaimed it was a guideline.[1] In addition, the book contains 8 different references now. Ikip (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't quote WP:FICT. That, as you point out, has failed to gain support as a policy. The policy is WP:GNP and it's expansive offshoot WP:BK from which I did quote "it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." That at least is clear enough, despite the continued debate as to what might actually make a derivative article notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator Please not the signifigant improvements in this article since its nomination.[2] Ikip (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Alexandra Daddario, Talk:Rick Riordan, and Talk:Percy Jackson & The Olympians page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Comment. There is clearly a difference of opinion on what constitutes significant coverage of fictional characters in books. Any well known book will have many references that mention the main characters. Despite requests, there has not been coverage specifically about the character in question. The casting references are mainly about the person being cast, not discussion of the character herself. It is growing increasingly apparent that there are some editors who seem to take the attitude that any significant character in a notable book is automatically notable. Is this really in line with policy? Also, who determines the notability or otherwise of a book? Is it just notable in wikipedia terms? (As an example Claudia Coulter was recently kept, many of the Keep votes referencing her lead in 'notable' film The Witches Hammer, which was only reviewed in specialist horror websites, and went straight to DVD). If this is going to become the accepted standard then every major character in every book on wikipedia could justifiably have an article. Sorry for the slippery slope argument, but that's the way I can see these things going. Quantpole (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's just the thing, we don't have a consensus on the notability of fictional characters as seen at WP:FICT's talk page. Thus, we mostly focus on verifiability and common sense measures of notability. Moreover, a recent RFC on Not#Plot had a majority opposed to the restrictions on Plot, which resulted in it being tagged as "dubious". Thus, the community has yet to iron these issues out. So, if we go by verifiability, we can verify the article's contents through a variety of primary and secondary sources, included some out of universe content as well, which means that the article is not entirely original research. Then we go with a common sense measure of notability. It concerns a main character who appears in multiple books and is played in an upcoming film by an actress for whom we have an article. It doesn't mean every major character in every book on Wikipedia should have an article, but say characters who appear in multiple books, as well as in a film, and for whom we do have a number of sources, we can justify either having an article or per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE take a middle ground and say merge and redirect the sourced content to wherever useful and thereby keep the edit history so that as additional sources come about, editors do not have to start over. I think deletion here would be premature. We can always for the time being merge the sourced information and redirect with edit history intact and then if the film is a some kind of hit and additional interviews and reception style information comes out, we already have the basis or foundation from which to build available. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, until someone finally comes up with a workable fict, A Nobody's definition of "common sense" remains just that: A Nobody's definition of common sense. Actual guidelines still demand that the topic of the article be examined directly and in detail by multiple third-party sources, and WP:NOT#PLOT remains policy. Until those two things change, deleting this article would appear to be the most reasonable action, because this article is essentially a plot summary, and, outside of plot summaries, the references do not examine this particular character directly and in detail, instead choosing to focus on the overall work.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plot remains disputed and marked as dubious, because it lacks consensus and support. Something marked as such isn't something we're bound by. Because the references examine this particular character directly and in detail, the article is keepable or at worst merge and redirectable, which is why it is being balanced between plot summary and the newer sections on development and reception. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this case I'd be happy for the merge as you suggest it, and thanks for trying to reach some common ground. There's too many of us (probably including myself) who aren't willing to compromise much here. One of the issues I see is that there isn't much of an incentive for those who want to keep these articles to actually agree to a policy. At the moment this sort of debate will often be closed as no consensus, as it is a grey area, which rightly means the page will be kept. Quantpole (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Utterly off topic for the AfD, but I'd be interested to see whether there is a consensus around the simple statement that "as a minimum, a character can be said to have acquired notability if they are referred to in a WP:RS review of the book." It's probably not enough for the hardline notability crew, and too much for the side that wishes to assert notability by some derivative of the "everyone knows" argumentElen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Put simply, main characters in important fiction are notable. WP:PLOT does not talk about individual wp articles, just wp coverage in general. As long as the work of fiction is covered in other aspects somewhere, an article about a character or plot does not violate the present wording. (Obviously, some people have tried to make it apply to individual articles, but that wording to has been rejected as have many other changes. I think there is in fact a consensus that the present wording is not good; what is lacking is a consensus for what to do about it. This sort of situation can prevent action indefinitely. I hope we'll compromise sooner or later. The renomination of articles that have already been kept is to me a signal that those supporting the deletion are not willing to compromise. I agree there is a difference iun opinion, and that means there is no consensus to delete DGG (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think the article as it was when nominated was deserving of deletion under the existing policy WP:N (why all the keepers keep quoting other things that aren't policy, I don't know). Whether journos asking the author if actress X can play the character better than actress Y represents notability of the character is an interesting question for the consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, your argument presumes that there is somewhere an article about this topic that isn't plot heavy. I can't find it. Percy Jackson & The Olympians is primarily plot. The Lightning Thief is 95% plot. The Sea of Monsters is 95% plot. The Titan's Curse is 95% plot. The Battle of the Labyrinth is 95% plot. The Last Olympian is 98% plot. There are plot-heavy articles on multiple characters as well. This series is a poster child for what NOT#PLOT is supposed to put a stop to. If you added all the non-plot coverage in the dozen or so articles together, it would still be a damn short article.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's slightly disingenuous to say that the renomination means an unwillingness to compromise, when the original nominator is not a part of this discussion and none of those voting delete here were involved in the previous one. Quantpole (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One might ask why then it is proving so difficult to find. The truth is that commentary on the character may or may not exist, but no evidence that it does exist has been shown here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
because there are other sources that (believe it or not) are not online. Check any newsstand to see the huge variety of detailed commentary on all this sort of stuff. Unfortunately, I have not had the time or inclination to check this one out, but someone should. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the burden of producing such a source belong to the people asserting that they exist? Why should an opinion that comes down to "I'm sure the people arguing that there are not sources are wrong, even though I, myself, cannot be bothered to provide any evidence supporting my position" be given any weight in an AFD?—Kww(talk) 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been said before, but it's not my job to prove myself wrong. Whoever 'someone' is, they really need to get on with it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep As I said previously, Annabeth is a notable character. Anyway, the primary concern for the article was its lack of references which has been handled by now. Pmlinediter  Talk 07:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put in the web references. Does anyone have access to these books: School Library Journal 1, Chicago Tribune, School Library Journal 2, Register Guard, Publisher's Weekly, Kliatt, Booklist, Horn Book Magazine 1, Horn Book Magazine 2?
Sorry User:Pmlinediter - does "as I said" meet the requirements of WP:RS? The issue has always been not whether you or I view the character as notable or not, but whether reliable sources confirm that the character is notable. Sources have been added (and the writing improved which you yourself noted as a necessity a couple of months ago) - the question remains whether they are sufficient to establish notability. Is it notable if -
1. Reviewers sometimes mention this character in reviews as being a character in the book (so far none of the reviews have done more than that, and some reviews do not mention the character at all - I personally would have expected that to establish notability, the reviewer needs to say a little more, but I doubt there is consensus on this view.
2. Since the book is being made into a film, it is necessary to cast an actor to play the part, and the casting process has attracted some media attention. The question here I think is whether the notability attaches to the actor, the book or the character. Can you establish that it attaches to the character?Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears to have the minimal references required for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to pretty clearly meet the notability requirements. The plot-summary-ish/in-universe content is an issue, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Robofish (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is any worth information for this character found on the future then add it to the list of characters. There is a list of characters and I think we don't need lengthly details for characters, apart maybe from one or two. We can create very good summaries of the books in their page. Creating articles for characters won't offer any more good. So, it's a matter of organising the information we have in an optimal way: Good articles for the books that have summaries and list of characters to give profiles and/or highlight of the characters and more important present how this characters are realised in other media, press,books, etc. All this can fit in one article for each book and one list of characters article (with always the exception of the protagonist character which may need an additional article). If we have more information we can think if something judging by the WP:SIZE but until then no reason to create article like that. A more reasonable expansion of information, depending of the material we have every time, helps in adding more quality information and helps readers to read articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect I'm surprised to find myself saying this, because I thoroughly dislike deletionism, and the character seems to be effectively the co-star of the series. However the changes to Annabeth (Percy Jackson) since its last AfD in Dec 2008 have moved the article further towards being a near-duplicate of information in Percy Jackson & The Olympians. OTOH I'd want the redirect for this and other character articles because I can imagine readers arriving by looking for info about Annabeth. I suggest the editor(s) of Percy Jackson & The Olympians and the articles on the individual books should improve these articles as much as possible, and then break out separate articles when info on sub-topics such as major characters that is well-supported by good references becomes too lengthy to fit in the existing articles. This is the pattern one would expect in other literature articles, for example: there's an article about Shakespeare's Hamlet, and Hamlet (legend), analyses trhe historical basis of the play's leading character; and the process of improving Hamlet may well produce enough info for a separate article about significant aspects of the character, e.g. whether he was insane and whether he had an Oedipus complex. PS I think at present "merge and redirect" is also in the interests of the editor(s), since having a lot of articles means they have to do more work to keep updates consistent, protect the articles from vandalism, etc. - articles, like puppies, are for life. --Philcha (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking on the stress on the editors, but I, as a principle editor of the article would be pleased were the article kept and later promoted to a good article. Pmlinediter  Talk 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly, all the article needs is time. Either give WP:PJTF a month to improve the articles sources or just delete it right away and then let us start from scratch.--(NGG) 11:42, 12 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annabeth_(Percy_Jackson)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1082500848"