Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Lahan

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 keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Lahan

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

Not one of the references in this article constitutes third-party significant coverage of this non-notable character. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 17:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No surprise from the user who put this to GA, but I really disagree with this. There is adequate coverage behind the development of the character (casting, statements from portraying actor, statements from co-stars) And I wouldn't go so far as saying "non-notable" either, she is. Just what does "not one of the references in this article constitutes third-party significant coverage" mean? Digital Spy, Daily Mirror, The Guardian. I use these sources quite a lot, and I haven't had any trouble with them. -- Matthew RD 17:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand the significance of 'significant' in that quote from my comment above. Randomly picked, this 'source' doesn't contain significant coverage. This 'source' contains a very basic Q&A about her effect on Lucas' character – not particularly focussed on her at all. Again, I don't consider that significant. You get the picture. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 17:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources might not mostly be focused on the character, but that doesn not mean it's not worthy of inclusion, is it? Besides, she's only a background character. -- Matthew RD 18:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources might not mostly be focused on the character, but that doesn not mean it's not worthy of inclusion, is it? If it's not focussed on the character then it's quite unlikely to be the required level of "significant coverage."
Besides, she's only a background character. You're right there. But I can't quite find the section of Wikipedia:Notability which says, "Articles about background characters have a lower notability threshold than for normal characters." Could you quote it for me? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 18:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to continue arguing this. Obviously everything I say you will reply and deconstruct everything I just said, but that doesn't mean I change my vote to delete or merge, it means I still want the article kept, and the least I expected you to do is acknowledge that there is going to be the odd one who disagrees if the discussion ends up going your way and it gets merged. No need to go to my talk page to say you replied, I got this discussion on my watchlist. -- Matthew RD 18:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to continue arguing this. Thanks for the notification, I won't bother watching out for your reply to this then. Obviously everything I say you will reply and deconstruct everything I just said... That's more or less to be expected in a debate. That doesn't mean I change my vote... If you refuse to argue your case further even in the face of reasoned criticism then that is your decision, though I would not have thought that it was an advisable one. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information in the article comes almost wholly from primary sources (episodes of the television show), and the other sources devote the space of two to three lines to the character during interviews which are primarily about the real persons (actors, actresses) involved in making the show and their personal lives. Per WP:GNG significant coverage consists of more than a trivial mention. We would need secondary sources that focus on the character, and these don't exist independent of the subject. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an Inclusionist, I strongly believe the article should not be deleted. Clearly a lot of time has been spent on finding reliable sources. I feel the article would help viewers and non-viewers alike understand her character - and the series - better. There are a number of other minor characters, such as in Lost, that merit their own articles. I see no strong reason why this shouldn't either. Ruby2010 comment! 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly poor argument. As an Inclusionist, I strongly believe the article should not be deleted. WP:NOREASON. Clearly a lot of time has been spent... WP:MERCY. I feel the article would help viewers... WP:ITSUSEFUL. There are a number of other minor characters that merit their own articles... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
I'm actually quite impressed that you've managed to formulate a four-point "keep" comment, where each point is a classic example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. But no matter how impressed I am, it doesn't move the discussion further along. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 08:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A subject does not require third party sources to be considered a notable topic, secondary sources are enough to establish that, of which there are a number of here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A subject does not require third party sources to be considered a notable topic... Hmmm, I wonder why the first sentence of Wikipedia:Notability says, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I guess we should correct it? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, as the rest of the page doesn't even mention third party sources but instead says "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." and "• "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." This article has secondary sources and thus satisfied WP:GNG, if you believe it should not have a separate article but instead be merged with another article, then a merge discussion would be appropriate. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't believe it should be merged with another article, I believe it should be deleted, as is quite clear from the fact that I have initiated a deletion discussion for it. As Chromancer (talk · contribs) correctly points out, "The information in the article comes almost wholly from primary sources (episodes of the television show), and the other sources devote the space of two to three lines to the character," and that does not constitute the addressing of the subject directly in detail which is required by WP:GNG. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 10:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost wholly" is quite the overstatement, 'a third' would be more correct. A lot perhaps, but I believe there are enough other references that cover the subject. just the first reference I clicked was entirely about her character. You left out the second part of that sentence which defines its meaning: "so no original research is needed to extract the content." which isn't the case, meaning that the sources discuss the subject in sufficient detail. If no OR is needed to extract the content from the source then it discusses it in sufficient detail. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant tertiary sources, but this is different of third-party sources. Tertiary sources, those from encyclopedias for example, are indeed not required; notability is established by third-party sources, sources independent of the subject (therefore a fortiori not primary, and in general secondary). Cenarium (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-referenced fictional character entry. I wish all fictional character articles looked at least this good. I would consider deletion if it were a non-notable BLP, but this article has enough marginal third-party references to pass as a fictional character. Cool Hand Luke 19:38, 2 May 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.