Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolae Carpathia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirected to List of Left Behind Characters#Nicolae Carpathia, where he is already mentioned. Any merging desired can be done by pulling content from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolae Carpathia[edit]
- Nicolae Carpathia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources establish the notability of this fictional character. Biruitorul Talk 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Numerous hits on Google Books discussing this as a fictional character; I have added some to the article. One reference, Morgan, David T. (2006). The new Brothers Grimm and their Left behind fairy tales. Mercer University Press. ISBN 0881460362., mentions this charfacter 47 times. Clearly sufficient for notability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of sources exist, and even if they didn't a merge to a (to be created) List of characters in the Left Behind series would be more appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of the article does not meet the general notability guideline since there are no reliable third-party sources that treat it in detail. With no secondary sources independent of the subject, it also does not have significant coverage. All Google hits about the character appear to be either for trivial mentions or from primary sources, which does not show notability, and those that show critical commentary are for the Left Behind series, not this fictional character. With not critical commentary, the article is written exclusively with an in-universe perspective, lacking real-world perspective and, as such, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Since the article does not appear to have real-world notability, it's an unnecessary content fork that doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are currently 2220 hits on Google Books. Have you checked that each one is either trivial or primary? Have you looked at the reference I gave above by Morgan which devotes four chapters to this character? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have checked some of them and the Google hits that I checked are trivial mentions, plot about the series, reviews of the series or primary sources. And none of the secondary sources there treat the character in detail. Also, several mentions in a single source does not constitute significant coverage, particularly when the source itself is not independent of the subject and treats the character in regards to the plot. The book shows notability for the Left behind series, not for the fictional character Nicolae Carpathia. Jfgslo (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you checked some of them. I see. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He shouldn't have had to check any. YOU go find some that explicitly impart upon NC notability, edit the page to include it, then we'll talk. But until then, we continue to assume that no evidence for notability exists, and act accordingly, just as we do in everything else on WP. - Drlight11 (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone states "there are no reliable third-party sources that treat it in detail" then they are under some kind of obligation to address the question of what the thousands of references actually say, since the statement is tantamount to saying that not a single one of those references is a reliable source, and that is incompatible with not having checked them. This page is for discussing, among other things, whether this subject is notable. The object of such a discussion is to decide whether the article is capable of being sourced, and we are already discussing one such source. It is not necessary to include those sources in the article right now, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He shouldn't have had to check any. YOU go find some that explicitly impart upon NC notability, edit the page to include it, then we'll talk. But until then, we continue to assume that no evidence for notability exists, and act accordingly, just as we do in everything else on WP. - Drlight11 (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you checked some of them. I see. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have checked some of them and the Google hits that I checked are trivial mentions, plot about the series, reviews of the series or primary sources. And none of the secondary sources there treat the character in detail. Also, several mentions in a single source does not constitute significant coverage, particularly when the source itself is not independent of the subject and treats the character in regards to the plot. The book shows notability for the Left behind series, not for the fictional character Nicolae Carpathia. Jfgslo (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are currently 2220 hits on Google Books. Have you checked that each one is either trivial or primary? Have you looked at the reference I gave above by Morgan which devotes four chapters to this character? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge per nom. The series is obviously notable, but this character is not. HairyWombat 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So do you support the nominator's assertion that there are "no sources"? Have you checked into all of the two thousand books that refer to this character? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the nominator's assertion that this fictional character is not notable. User Jfgslo discusses the sources most eloquently. Specifically, user Jfgslo has explained why it is not a counting exercise. HairyWombat 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not a mere counting exercise, agreed: but counting does come into it. However, an assertion that there are "no sources" needs to address the fact that there are thousands of references in Google Books and 157 in Google Scholar. Jfgslo says he has checked "some" of these and feels able to assert that none of them treat the character in detail, an assertion which I believe is contradicted by the single example I gave above. To assert that there are no sources is to assert that none of these hundreds and hundreds of references constitutes a source. That seems unlikely in itself in view of the numbers involved, and would require either a claim to have checked all the sources of some other reason to discount them beyond mere elqouence. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just waded through 60 mentions of "Nicolae Carpathia" or "Carpathia" in the book you cite as a source, Morgan, David T. (2006). The new Brothers Grimm and their Left behind fairy tales. Mercer University Press. ISBN 0881460362. All of them treat the character in regards to the plot; none of them make the character notable. Again, it is not a counting exercise. HairyWombat 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would aver that it is up to those attempting to rescue this article to establish its notability BY finding some of those "thousands" of sources that DO treat the character as more than just a component of the plot, and editing the NC page to include a description of those sources' analysis. It could well be that NC has been richly studied, but until someone can find such analysis and include it on his page (instead of just his actions in the literature), I vote Delete. - Drlight11 (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just waded through 60 mentions of "Nicolae Carpathia" or "Carpathia" in the book you cite as a source, Morgan, David T. (2006). The new Brothers Grimm and their Left behind fairy tales. Mercer University Press. ISBN 0881460362. All of them treat the character in regards to the plot; none of them make the character notable. Again, it is not a counting exercise. HairyWombat 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not a mere counting exercise, agreed: but counting does come into it. However, an assertion that there are "no sources" needs to address the fact that there are thousands of references in Google Books and 157 in Google Scholar. Jfgslo says he has checked "some" of these and feels able to assert that none of them treat the character in detail, an assertion which I believe is contradicted by the single example I gave above. To assert that there are no sources is to assert that none of these hundreds and hundreds of references constitutes a source. That seems unlikely in itself in view of the numbers involved, and would require either a claim to have checked all the sources of some other reason to discount them beyond mere elqouence. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the nominator's assertion that this fictional character is not notable. User Jfgslo discusses the sources most eloquently. Specifically, user Jfgslo has explained why it is not a counting exercise. HairyWombat 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So do you support the nominator's assertion that there are "no sources"? Have you checked into all of the two thousand books that refer to this character? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the series character page (if it exists) or series page. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 6 March 2011 (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.