Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Adams (Character)

:{{la|Chris Adams (Character)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Adams (Character)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Chris Adams (Character)}})

No indication of notability whatsoever. Does not meet WP:N. Crusio (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is about a character from the film The Magnificent Seven; see also WP:Articles for deletion/Bernardo O'Reilly. Suggest that the two discussions share a common outcome, whatever that may be. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

: Let's put the three (four, including the template discussion) together. It'll be much more easy to discuss. Current situation is a little bit complicated. To copy messages in a four different threads?? Unwise. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• keep Widely known character, present in several sequels and influential in many other Westerns and other dramatic fiction. Existing refs (I added a few) are more than sufficient to establish notability. The article could use improvement, but there is no reason to delete it. DES ^(talk) 21:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Moved (renamed) article to lowercase character, per conventions. Aiken ♫ 15:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• keep or Merge. Widely known character which has received [http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&q=chris+adams+maginificent+seven&btnG=Search+Books good coverage] in reliable sources. I would suggest having a single big article on all the seven characters of the Magnificent Seven. With the quality of sources available in Gbooks and the Russian language sources SerdechnyG has added, a single article has a good chance of making it to GA or FA status. And it would be far more convenient to have them all in a single article.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

: I'm afraid it would be too large if we merge them. We must look forward and understand that not only russians and americans would see this article (in case if we merge them all). Imagine how big it will be, if spaniards, germans, japaneese and others will write about the reception of different characters in their countries. About books, songs, pictures, contemporary art products related or dedicated to them. We must act regarding to different rate of popularity of each of these characters, which is variable for different character in different countries (look above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo O'Reilly discussion) -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

:*As they stand, these articles are just loose collections of trivia. Most of that can be cut or condensed (a lot of it is repetitive). Once that is done, only small stubs would be left. Merging into one article (and why should that not simply be the article on the movie, which could use some fleshing out) really makes sense. --Crusio (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

:: Yet. But do you really know, how they will look like after a year of edits? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

::*I have no idea how this would look after a year of editing, because I cannot use WP as a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:: And you forgot about `Character analysis`. It can't be cnosidered as trivia. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

::*That section most certainly can be considered trivia. "Smith says Chris is evil". "Jones says Chris is not as bad as Calvera". That's trivial. If you'd like to see what a proper encyclopedic entry would look like, see here. Of course, even that re-written section is just some superficial pop-psychology. Don't these books give any more information that just these trivial mentions of the character? --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:::: You forgot a little detail, if we note that this Smith is Doctor of arts, Columbia University professor, and there is an article in Wikipedia about him and his studies, it'll be not so trivial as you say. But after you deleted their scientifical titles, of course, their opinion is not more significant than anonymous comments somewhere in the Web. Isn't it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually it's really not so important that all these people have professor titles. But, during a deletion discussion, which, by the way, was started by Crusio, his reverts looks like deleting the notalibility proofs. For example, if someone named Howard Hughes had described a subject of the article in his books - it means not more important than such description by anonymous user anywhere in the Web. But, if we add that this Howard Hughes is a Professor of Cinema in The San Francisco State University - this little addition changing a notability and reliance of this source in a critical way. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment No, I am not removing "notability proofs". Whether Hughes and others are professors or not is really not very important. Some comment somewhere on the web, by a professor or not, is not acceptable as a reliable source. What makes the references you added go some way towards establishing notability is the fact that these books were published by (sometimes very) reputable publishers. What makes me say "some way" and not conclude that notability has been established beyond doubt is that it still looks to me like the mention of these characters in those books are essentially only in-passing, not in-depth analyses. --Crusio (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

::: What makes the references you added go some way towards establishing notability is the fact that these books were published by (sometimes very) reputable publishers.

::: Who says? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It still looks to you like the mention of these characters in those books are essentially only in-passing, not in-depth analyses?

• [http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&hl=ru&id=S3fgAAAAMAAJ&dq=Hollywood%27s+America%3A+United+States+history+through+its+films&q=Chris Hollywood's America: United States history through its films]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=i7Y8O_yvvKAC&lpg=PA45&dq=Higgs%2C%20Robert%20J.%3B%20Turner%2C%20Ralph%20H.&hl=ru&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q=&f=false The cowboy way: the western leader in film, 1945-1995]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=t5gmteJHBh0C&lpg=PP1&dq=Stagecoach%20to%20Tombstone%3A%20The%20Filmgoers'%20Guide%20to%20the%20Great%20Westerns&hl=ru&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q=&f=false Stagecoach to tombstone: the filmgoers' guide to the great westerns]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=omejn1v4f3sC&lpg=PP1&dq=Reframing%20screen%20performance&hl=ru&pg=PA149#v=onepage&q=Chris&f=false Reframing screen performance]
• [http://books.google.com/books?id=mAllHF9-7ZYC&lpg=PP1&dq=Yul%20Brynner%3A%20a%20biography%E2%80%8E&hl=ru&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=Chris&f=false Yul Brynner: a biography] -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Yes, those links are very clear: with the exception of The Cowboy Way, these are all in-passing mentions, nothing in-depth. And The Cowboy Way presents a whole chapter on The Magnificent Seven as a movie and describes and interprets the plot. It is not a discussion'' of Chris (or any of the other characters for that matter). This information can easily be merged into The Magnificent Seven, or at most into an article entitled "Characters in The Magnificent Seven" or such, as proposed by Erik. --Crusio (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

::: No comments. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• keep. Wikipedia has load of articles about fictional characters, so clearly there cannot be an objection in principle to having articles on fictional characters. The film is extremely well known. There is no reason why the article cannot be developed to become a good article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as a potential topic that should be researched further. However, The Magnificent Seven is very sparse, so if there is not that much about this character, we should be able to put together a strong "Cast" or "Characters" section at the film article. If we can write about three, four, or more paragraphs about the character alone (with secondary sources, not the film), then a stand-alone article could work. Erik (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:*So do you recommended an outright keep or a merge? --Crusio (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination The article has cleaned up rather nicely and could be improved further along the lines of Calvera (Character). I therefore withdraw the nomination and suggest that we work towards Erik's suggestion of merging the articles on the different characters with the main movie article. --Crusio (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

:We'll think about it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (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.