Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellaria Sand

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. Broad support for redirecting the article and for keeping it outright; clearly no consensus to delete. If discussion continues about the redirect on the article's talk page, it may be worth considering if many of the supplied sources are actually about the character or the actor playing her.A Train^talk 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellaria Sand

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

A minor character, the only reference demonstrates that it exists, but does not really show notability Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider Ellaria Sand a "minor character", as if she was a minor character, she would not be credited in the opening sequence. I am hoping that people will put more detail on the article, which I cannot add, especially for her appearances in the novel, since I have only just started a Clash of Kings. TedEdwards (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also hoping people will find sources and add them to the page. TedEdwards (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a (relatively) massive category of ASoIaF/GoT character pages that have no business existing here. Fictional characters aren't supposed to get pages unless they receive significant, independent coverage. This might be something for the arbitration committee to check out. Jergling (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) ArbCom doesn't handle content. 2) Your assertion is blatantly untrue with respect to this particular character. It's probably true for some of them, but per WP:ATD-M, NN fictional characters should be merged to lists rather than deleted. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters as paucity of sources does not warrant a standalone article although as a fan of the books and films i can understand how some people might argue for articles on every character in the series (probably a similar situation with lotr, star trek and so one), as for other characters, afd awaits ... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple significant mentions in independent RS: Telegraph, Radio Times (interview with the actress about this show), [1] (speculation about the character's influence on upcoming Season 7), Yahoo (speculation on the TV character's influence on RL fashion), [2] (more speculation on her role in next season), and[3] (People in Ireland naming daughters after her). Then let's look at books: Women of Ice and Fire: Gender, Game of Thrones and Multiple Media Engagements [4], Collection Editions: A Game of Thrones: An Inside Guide to the Hit Show [5], and Inside HBO's Game of Thrones: Seasons 3 & 4 [6]--not bad for a TV show that's still running. Oh, and then there's scholar: Regulating Bisexuality: Binormativity and Assimilation to the Homonormative Order in American Scripted Television Series [7]... again, not bad for a show that's still running. Overall, the article sucks but the character clearly meets the GNG. The ASoIaF Wikiproject can only do so much at once, and while this character is not exactly central, it still is pretty much indisputably notable. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Coolabahapple:I do not believe every single ASoIaF should have an article to do with themselves, either because they're are such minor characters, or if they are starring characters, some of the plot lines of characters such as Talisa Stark or Gilly's are parallel with another character who does have an article, in these two cases, Robb Stark and Sam Tarly respectively, meaning if they did have a separate article, it would effectively be repeated info from another article. However, Ellaria Sand is not parallel with any character for her whole story line, so giving her an article is worth it. TedEdwards (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect as described above. I came to this discussion ready to redirect (perhaps too ready), and after reading User:Jclemens's first link (IMHO a bare mention) I felt reassured with my call. That editor and I have disagreed about quality of sourcing before. However, a further reading of his presented sources compels me to change my initial assessment. I believe Jclemens has provided adequate sourcing to meet GNG. For my part, I don't generally think many fictional worlds should be deeply covered in pagespace, but given the enormous cultural significance of the books and TV series and given the character's rapid "promotion" to leadership in the last season, I feel comfortable bowing to the results of Jclemens's reasonable search. I'd appreciate it if he chooses to add links to the best of those found to anchor this unsourced page. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @BusterD:, I would have more time to actually improve articles if people would follow WP:BEFORE and stop nominating clearly notable topics for deletion. As is, what little time I have to devote to Wikipedia is substantially consumed with searching for sources for such fictional elements--some of which are kept, many of which are redirected, and only a few are legitimately deleted. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No argument from me. I appreciate your search efforts. Because of what you've presented there's zero reason to delete; in this case keeping is my preferred option to redirection. Adequate reason to assume this page can be much improved as upcoming books and series episodes (and coverage thereof) are released. BusterD (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There's really not that much worthwhile in the above sources. They're not all entirely without merit, but anything useful can easily fit on a character list entry. I don't believe notability is establish or that the sources warrant an article currently. TTN (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect--yeah, I'm with TTN here; Jclemens, you have found nice mentions, but as far as I'm concerned that's just what they are. I mean, if a couple of mentions (that Bloomsbury book, for instance, only mentions her once, and not with much discussion) is enough to make a person notable per GNG, then one wonders what we should put in "main" articles that does not pass the GNG. In other words, if we lay the bar so low everything is notable. No, I do not accept this depth and breadth of coverage as sufficient--sorry. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You looked at all of them? Even the Buckland book? How about Gjelsvik? Both are problematic in that they're truncated, but obviously continue to cover the character in depth. If you've done so and don't see that this fictional character is covered non-trivially in multiple independent reliable sources, which it is, then what sort of standard would you propose for a standalone article? Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Buckland is self-published (Lulu) so I put no stock in that at all; the "Inside Game of Thrones" book is the kind of book that chronicles the entirety of the show so that just about every character would be discussed is a given. The standard I have in mind is Unferð, for instance. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - This seems an unfair (sorry) comparison, given the thousand years since Beowulf hit the newsstands. I doubt much was written in contemporary literature about the significance of this minor character which appears only a few times in the text. On the other hand, in this case while this epic is still under production, we have a scholarly imprint which seems to directly detail this novel character and its TV adaptation at some length (four mentions in the single paragraph), a brief interview with the actress in an almost 100 year-old media outlet, a discussion of the character's impact on contemporary fashion and a discussion of the character's actions in a women-written professional website devoted to discussing mothers and motherhood issues, a deep discussion of the character in the context of middle age mythology by a "Fellow and Tutor in Medieval English Literature at St John's College, Oxford" in an international imprint, a defense of the character's actions in a rightest, somewhat controversial political website. The character has received way more than passing coverage and in reputable sources deemed notable in themselves for inclusion in Wikipedia. While the page deserves improvement, it does not deserve deletion or at this point redirection. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - BusterD, I totally approve of your pun. I am not convinced still by the sources or by the standard you propose, but I approve of the pun. BTW, it's only been a century or so since Beowulf got any kind of serious press coverage. I suggest we can wait a few years--there's no rush. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJust to let you know, the page has recently improved significantly, due to edits by myself and Catholic nerd. TedEdwards (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- During a formal xfd discussion, expansion without citation does not equal improvement. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plot lines do not need citation as long as no interpretation has been made by editors, from my understanding of previous editors' actions. TedEdwards (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to C2 of WP:Before, editors should consider leaving time for other editors to develop an article before nominating the article for deletion, if the article was recently created. After I turned the article from a redirect into a proper article, it only took just over 24 hours for Ymblanter to nominate the article for deletion. This is absolutely ridiculous, the article should be allowed to be improved for a good amount of time before the article is nominated for deletion. TedEdwards (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about proper process, the topic should have been limited to the relevant character list and then split out only when the weight given to the topic became overly large. All and all, it's still just a minor character. Being part of an extremely popular and recent series, it's going to get some attention, but it's hard to say if that attention truly gives it the necessary weight to stand on its own. This could easily be part of a strongly sourced minor character list at this point. The actual plot information looks like a paragraph would suffice and a strong paragraph of development and reception would be good if it's possible from the above sources. TTN (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN:One, if Ellaria Sand was a minor character, why does the name of the actress who plays her appear in the opening credits from Season 5 onwards? Two, could I please have some time to find critical response for Ellaria Sand's character and Varma's performance? Also, I think you're under the impression that I'm planning to create an article for every single character in ASoIaF, I'm not, I can't even think of any more characters who I think should have an article, except maybe Pycelle. I don't even think major characters such as Shae, Talisa or Gilly need articles, there storys are closely intwined with another major character's plot line. TedEdwards (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of minor characters get noted during intros depending on the series, and given the sheer amount of characters in the series, the designation of being a minor character is going to hit a lot more characters than a series with a smaller cast. Either way, it's a fairly irrelevant designation for this discussion anyway. Secondary or minor, my point was that you should have started by editing List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Ellaria Sand first thing, assuming we're talking about proper editing etiquette. Regardless of this ending in keep or redirect, I do think it would be very beneficial to merge this article back after completion of the AfD and then split it out should the weight become too much for the list. That could very easily become a featured list if someone gives it the proper TLC. TTN (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "According to C2 of WP:Before, editors should consider leaving time for other editors to develop an article before nominating the article for deletion, if the article was recently created." but there is also WP:BURDEN - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.", also editors who change a redirect to an article can do plenty of things to ensure articles aren't nominated quickly, the easiest thing is to ensure the article has pleny of sources, start the article in your sandbox before taking it 'live', place messages in relevant project/article talkpages saying what you're doing, ditto with the article talkpage so editors know that someone is working on it and hasn't just done a 'flyby' article, and of course there is always the Template:Under construction that lets editors know that an article is ... well, under construction. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (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.