332:
description of the character as "incredible-looking". The Leeper website has no indication of its reliability as a source and again is a single sentence. I checked all six of these sources and dozens more before making the nomination and in the course of working on the article and they are all trivial passing mentions that do not establish the independent notability of the character. And yes, I will stand firmly and unswayingly by the proposition that the mere mention of a fictional character in a book does nothing to establish that the character is notable independent of the film from which the character is drawn. I can find you dozens if not hundreds of sources that confirm the existence of this character. You know as well as I do that mere existence does not equal notability and you ought to know as well as I that
346:
would permit" or that permits such speculative comments as "We are left to ponder why he allowed himself to be strung along by the countess, the ultimate circumstances that would have resulted in her granting him his wish for immortality, and why she felt she could tell him of her desire to be free of vampirism without arousing his anger at feeling betrayed"? I know you're an extreme inclusionist, but honestly, aren't you a little embarrassed to be arguing in favor of this article?
313:
saying, a/ challenged as unsourced. b/sources found by two editors c/ delete anyway, regardless of the amount of sourcing. I don;'t think you mean to make a general statement that characters in fiction never get articles, regardless of the sources and what they say, because I think you know there would be very strong consensus against that. And I note your own sources would seem to contradict your own assertion that the discussion of the relationship is just OR.
372:
31:
331:
Oh come now. Two of the sources, Kane and Clute, merely confirm the existence of the character. The
Benshoff reference is about two sentences out of a 328 page book and is used to identify the actor who played the character. The Humphries is also two sentences, out of a 224 page book. The Willis is a
345:
which requires "significant" (meaning "more than trivial") coverage in reliable sources. What sources, either that I found or that this other editor has found, reliably source the assertion that the way Sandor interacts verbally with the
Countess is "more complex than a master-servant relationship
336:
specifically states that mentions such as these are trivial. I never said that fictional characters never get separate articles so I have to wonder why you would even try to suggest that I ever said such a thing or anything like it. Our standard criteria for an article on a fictional character are
312:
Changed to keep; it seems someone very quickly found 6 sources, some of which seem pertinent. Furthermore, if the sources you found discuss this particular character, and they seem to, then there would be firm reason by our standard criteria to have an article. Otherwise you'd have to be
435:
and explain how these passing mentions of the character's name satisfy that criterion. Please explain how the proffered sources or any source establishes that the relationship between
Zaleska and Sandor is "more complex than a master-servant relationship would permit" or the speculation about
378:
as notable due to large number of sources, which also means it is not original research and as the article contains multiple sections rather than just covering plot it satisfactorily meets our inclusion criteria. Anyone who argues in favor of keeping this article should feel proud! :)
268:
as there isn't enough for a separate article. (there may be already enough in the main article though). However, I wouldn't assume the speculation cant be sourced, until I checked all the reviews. (but unless there's a major discussion, it still isn't apropriate for a separate article).
401:
which states clearly and explicitly that coverage must be more than trivial and challenge those in favor of keeping this article to address my points above regarding the triviality of the proffered sources. Note the examples given of significant and trivial sources:
294:, you can see how much I've expanded it over the last several days. I've checked literally dozens of sources online and off and there is nothing about Sandor or the relationship between the two characters that isn't already noted in the film article.
341:, which states that "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources" and
489:. From what I can tell from the article, the mentions are very trivial and do not support establishing the character's notability apart from the film. Any useful information should be incorporated at
160:- this character is not notable outside the film in which he appears. No evidence of cultural impact, no appearances in other media, article consists largely of plot summary which is covered at
237:
436:
Zaleska's motives. And, someone's slapping three single-sentence "sections" on the end of the article is meaningful in establishing notability? Really? Can you point me toward the section of
150:
290:
What specifically of the unsourced material are you suggesting be merged that would not throw the article out of balance in favor of this character? If you take a look at
117:
112:
121:
40:
104:
211:
186:- Otto's pretty much said it all. I'll just add that there is virtually no sourcing and I can't find much on Google beyond passing mentions.
472:
543:
108:
17:
510:
474:
449:
388:
355:
324:
303:
280:
252:
226:
201:
177:
86:
380:
100:
92:
506:
525:
65:
46:
485:
per the nominator's argument; the fictional character's notability does not extend beyond his one appearance in
524:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
168:
speculation about where his relationship to his mistress falls in the scope of master-servant relationships.
82:
470:
491:
291:
161:
445:
384:
351:
299:
173:
467:
248:
222:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
420:
502:
194:
537:
441:
398:
347:
342:
338:
320:
295:
276:
169:
425:
413:
244:
218:
165:
138:
461:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
437:
333:
78:
371:
496:
187:
408:
are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band
315:
271:
404:
Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on
518:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
405:
25:
238:
list of
Fictional characters-related deletion discussions
145:
134:
130:
126:
466:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
528:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
212:list of Film-related deletion discussions
236:: This debate has been included in the
210:: This debate has been included in the
45:For an explanation of the process, see
7:
41:deletion review on 2008 November 16
24:
370:
29:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
511:14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
475:14:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
421:"Tough love child of Kennedy"
87:22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
450:19:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
419:Martin Walker (1992-01-06).
389:17:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
356:20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
325:19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
304:05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
281:01:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
253:03:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
227:03:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
202:20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
178:16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
101:Sandor (fictional character)
93:Sandor (fictional character)
560:
440:that supports that idea?
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
544:Pages at deletion review
521:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
397:I once again refer to
433:is plainly trivial.
492:Dracula's Daughter
487:Dracula's Daughter
412:in a biography of
292:Dracula's Daughter
162:Dracula's Daughter
73:The result was
477:
255:
241:
229:
215:
166:original research
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
551:
523:
499:
465:
463:
430:
410:Three Blind Mice
374:
242:
232:
216:
206:
192:
148:
142:
124:
63:
33:
32:
26:
559:
558:
554:
553:
552:
550:
549:
548:
534:
533:
532:
526:deletion review
519:
497:
459:
418:
198:
188:
144:
115:
99:
96:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
557:
555:
547:
546:
536:
535:
531:
530:
514:
513:
479:
478:
464:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
392:
391:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
307:
306:
285:
284:
256:
230:
204:
196:
155:
154:
95:
90:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
556:
545:
542:
541:
539:
529:
527:
522:
516:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
494:
493:
488:
484:
481:
480:
476:
473:
471:
469:
462:
458:
457:
451:
447:
443:
439:
434:
428:
427:
422:
416:
415:
409:
407:
400:
396:
395:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
377:
373:
369:
368:
357:
353:
349:
344:
340:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
317:
311:
310:
309:
308:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
282:
278:
274:
273:
265:
262:
261:
257:
254:
250:
246:
239:
235:
231:
228:
224:
220:
213:
209:
205:
203:
200:
199:
193:
191:
185:
182:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
152:
147:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
94:
91:
89:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
520:
517:
490:
486:
482:
468:Juliancolton
460:
432:
426:The Guardian
424:
414:Bill Clinton
411:
403:
375:
314:
270:
267:
263:
259:
258:
233:
207:
195:
189:
183:
157:
156:
75:no consensus
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
266:see below
337:found at
245:• Gene93k
219:• Gene93k
538:Category
442:Otto4711
381:63.3.1.2
348:Otto4711
296:Otto4711
170:Otto4711
151:View log
507:contrib
118:protect
113:history
483:Delete
399:WP:GNG
343:WP:GNG
339:WP:WAF
184:Delete
158:Delete
146:delete
122:delete
79:Stifle
260:Merge
149:) – (
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
503:talk
498:Erik
446:talk
438:WP:N
385:talk
376:Keep
352:talk
334:WP:N
321:talk
300:talk
277:talk
264:Keep
249:talk
234:Note
223:talk
208:Note
190:Reyk
174:talk
164:and
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
83:talk
495:. —
406:IBM
316:DGG
272:DGG
243:--
240:.
217:--
214:.
197:YO!
540::
509:)
505:•
448:)
431:)
423:.
387:)
379:--
354:)
323:)
302:)
279:)
251:)
225:)
176:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
85:)
77:.
43:.
501:(
444:(
429:.
417:(
383:(
350:(
319:(
298:(
275:(
247:(
221:(
172:(
153:)
143:(
141:)
103:(
81:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.