Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Snell

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 keep as a notable character and per improvements by Otto4711 et al. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sue Snell

Sue Snell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about a fictional character that fails WP:FICT (guidline which is disputed) and WP:NOT#PLOT (policy that is not disputed). It contains no out-of-universe information and is a very long plot summary from four different adapatations, but still just that; that does not make it more notable in the real-world. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral As much as I'm against "fancruft", this may be a a "main character" in the story and warrant its own page, even if all it contains is plot summary. However, as I've never read the book/seen the shows, I cant judge the importance of her character. Corpx (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Carrie (novel). I've read the book, and Sue Snell is an important secondary character at best. That being said, as hbdragon88 points out above, this article fails WP:V and WP:N and thus doesn't belong on this particular wiki. --jonny-mt 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - while it's difficult to tell from the limited previews, there appears to be some critical commentary about the character here, here and here. A little bit about the casting of Amy Irving in the role here. Additional Google books hits here although some of them are by a real person of the same name, and Google scholar results here. Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the above links don't appear to be linking properly, but all of the book hits are available through the book hits link. Otto4711 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • While I still strongly dispute the notion of redirecting or deleting this article, if it is redirected it should be to a List of characters from Carrie because there is verifiable information here that is separate from the novel, a little of which I've added and sources for additional are available. The contention that the article contains no out-of-universe information is no longer true. Otto4711 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's great OOU information but borders on so minimal that it seems that it better belongs in the main novel article opposed to Sue Snell or a list of characters one. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm a little confused. The nomination is based on the notion that real-world information is lacking, and when presented with real-world information you still are advocating for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm the only one who has stated a desire to delete. I have not reiterated that statemente. The rest want to merge, redirect, which means the AFD will probably be closed as such, with the merging being left as an editorial decision to the editors of this article. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I looked through the sources you found, and I have to agree with Hbdragon88. First, the article as it stands would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic--I don't think anyone is doubting that. Second, while I agree that there is now verifiable secondary information on the character (and have stricken my comment above accordingly), the issue of "significant coverage" as specified in WP:N is not satisfied as I see it. It's clear from the sources (and from subsequent poking around) that Carrie is definitely notable under these standards, but Sue is only mentioned as a contrast or in conjunction with Carrie--she does not receive sizeable coverage in her own right. I rather like your idea of redirecting to a list of characters in Carrie, but I simply don't believe the article can stand on its own. --jonny-mt 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I highly suspect there will be significant independent detailed literature on Carrie and the characters within. There aren't many characters within it and it is a very notable and influential book of the time. There will be enough detail of someone has some horror/etc commentary to add. The character also pervades several media (book and two films) which would have separate article pages. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep real world content discussing the role in the different adaptations and sequels. This is the sort of information the fiction deletionists often ask for. An important character in a very important fiction. At least one academic source--the sort of source they ask for also. Is the actual motive to decrease WP coverage of the field entirely, in good faith that it would benefit the encyclopedia? I know some people say they want to do this, but that would be a major policy decision that I do not think would be accepted. Doing it article by article is not acceptable either. What people read, film, and comment on in the real world is notable in the real world. DGG (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
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.