173:
attention paid to the character, none of them say anything other than a variation on "Her assistant was named Sandor and he wasn't very nice." More than two months have gone by and no new sources have come to light to establish notability. Merging is unnecessary because "Sandor (fictional character)" is a highly improbable search string and there is nothing in this article that is not already covered in the film article. A simple note at
931:
of universe context in multiple publications and is thus worthy of expanded coverage in a separate article. I reckon others can probably even do more with the article than I was able to, but again, even if one wants to make a case for a merge and/or redirect, I am not see a compelling case for a redlink or serious need to delete the article's good faith edit history. Happy
739:, which states that notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources". Note further that significant coverage means that "sources address the subject directly in detail" and that coverage is "more than trivial". Finally note that "one sentence mention" in larger works are specifically noted as
259:
of at least one other fictional character of the name (from the Bond film the Spy Who Loved Me). General consensus appears to be that one-time supporting characters don't warrent their own articles unless there is substantial coverage or if they are widely known (such as, say, Renault in
Casablanca).
172:
status, I reviewed these six sources as well as dozens if not hundreds more and none of them mention this character beyond noting his existence. None of them establish any cultural impact of the character, none of them offer out-of-universe perspective, none of them indicate any scholarly or critical
156:
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 description
930:
is a good article that still does not somehow preclude coverage of its characters in separate articles. We can have an article on a film about
Dracula, but the character is still sufficiently notable for a separate article as well. While obviously Sandor is not Dracula, he is still covered in out
258:
anything that isn't already covered there (I know the nominator says there isn't anything, but I'm just being certain). I agree adding a link on the disambiguation page works, and but this particular article title should be a redirect to that disambiguation and not to the movie article given I know
553:
in a prompted search so, assuming the person is not a drooling idiot, s/he will select either Sandor or Sandor (disambiguation). Having a second redirect that serves no purpose but to send them back to a page that is prompted before the redirect is pointless. And I'm sorry, but my counter-examples
457:
My point still stands unrefuted that both of those searches will appear before this one will. There is no point in maintaining this as a redirect because the suggested target will appear in a search before the redirect will. The purpose of redirects is to aid in navigation and this does not aid in
163:
specifically states that simple passing mentions of a subject in a larger work are insufficient to establish independent notability, and all of the "sources" held up as establishing the notability of this character separate from the single film in which he appears are simple passing mentions. In
743:
establishing notability. In light of this, please explain how this article, which relies on one- and two-sentence mentions in multi-hundred page books, is "adequately sourced". Please also explain how something's having a "distinctive name? qualifies it for a
Knowledge article in the absence of
572:
You have to keep in mind that not all users have a browser that supports that feature, but redirects don't care what browser you use. There's a good chance someone searching for the term might very well type in "Sandor (fictional character)" because they don't get a popup. Let's say we keep the
923:
think the article is a valid search term that is worth checking out and worth editing. As the article is neither a copywright violation nor libelous, there is no pressing or serious need to delete its edit history. A merge can and should be discussed on the article's talk page. Even if
889:
as article meets our notability guidelines by being verified in multiple published reliable secondary sources that contain significant enough out of universe information to write sections on
Scholary intepretation, Reception, and Comparison to other characters as confirmed by
299:
If there are multiple fictional characters with the name Sandor, then maintaining this as a redirect creates ambiguity. The best solution IMHO is to list every such character on the existing dab page with a link back to the source of the character. Prompted searching gives
370:
Pointing the user in the right direction is always preferable to sending them to the search page. If they're redirected to the disambiguation, they'll see multiple fictional
Sandors listed, and pick the one they want. There is nothing confusing or misleading about that.
573:
redirect, and someone clicks on that prompt - they go to the disambiguation page, which tells them there are multiple fictional characters named "Sandor". Since you're making the assumption they are not a drooling idiot, they'll click on the link they want. --
744:
reliable sources, with reference to the relevant policy or guideline. As for being a "reasonable search term", no one is going to type "Sandor (fictional character)" into the search box and even if they intended to, typing "Sandor (" would get them to
80:
867:
That there may be a sentence or two in other sources beyond the four or five sentences already sourced does not establish notability. A handful of one sentence mentions do not equal "significant coverage".
902:
as well as at least one other published encyclopedia, what is good for a paper encyclopedia is surely good for us as after all our First pillar is that we contain elements of specialized encyclopedias),
837:, as there is only one fictional character mentioned in that disambiguation page. Also, there is more information from reliable sources than what is included in the article; for example the fact that
75:
715:
in this case, I think this meets the exception of beings sufficiently widely known; it's furthermore a distinctive name, a reasonable search term, and an adequately sourced article article.
458:
navigation. And again, since there are multiple fictional characters named Sandor, keeping this is misleading. "Someone finds it useful" is IMHO a horrible standard. If I find, for example,
796:
Please refer to my comments up-thread, in which it is demonstrated that someone somewhere could find any possible redirect "useful" and that this is not a barrier to deleting redirects per
467:
140:
107:
102:
111:
534:
I know that people looking for a fictional character named Sandor are going to type S-a-n-d-o-r into the search box, yes. And that will give them the prompts for
94:
646:
all mentions apparently trivial, non-notable, and 70 years old. Agree with nom that merge is unneccesary. Salt for good measure (vampires are hard to kill).
895:
195:
Minor character in a single mid-importance film does not warrant a separate article. Agree with nominator's rationale as to why a merge is unnecessary.
891:
939:
908:
877:
858:
809:
787:
761:
726:
703:
689:
655:
616:
590:
563:
525:
487:
448:
414:
388:
361:
343:
317:
294:
268:
244:
204:
186:
59:
904:
508:" aren't going to get us anywhere. I don't quite understand what you're saying - you know what people are going to type into the search box? --
154:. Those in favor of keeping the article noted the "sources" that were added in the course of the AFD. To repeat my analysis of those sources:
599:#3) and could just as easily point to any president of anything. The Darth Vader search is silly, much longer, and obviously less likely. --
157:
of the character as "incredible-looking". The Leeper website has no indication of its reliability as a source and again is a single sentence.
223:
per 23skidoo (below). I don't think an seldom-used redirect hurts anything, and think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to
352:
Yes. Someone looking for a specific fictional character named "Sandor" will be misled by a redirect called "Sandor (fictional character)".
98:
684:
611:
585:
520:
443:
383:
338:
289:
239:
846:
17:
550:
424:
90:
65:
849:. Verifiable information on possibly non-notable subtopics of a notable topic should be at least merged, not deleted.
842:
932:
954:
36:
953:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
834:
745:
651:
543:
539:
402:
305:
220:
174:
427:. You might not think it's a likely search, but three of us do, and our inclusion guideline for redirects (
474:
should I set it up? All kinds of things that someone somewhere found useful at least once get deleted at
920:
680:
673:
607:
600:
581:
574:
516:
509:
439:
432:
379:
372:
334:
327:
285:
278:
235:
228:
926:
830:
749:
501:
468:
That guy in the Star Wars movies who grows up to be Darth Vader and is played by Hayden
Christensen
459:
255:
216:
165:
47:
873:
805:
757:
647:
559:
483:
410:
357:
313:
264:
182:
911:. Article has accordingly improved considerably since it was first nominated a short time ago:
854:
783:
397:
They will be pointed in the right direction by searching for "Sandor" and ending up at either
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
838:
699:
471:
200:
778:
finds a redirect useful, it should not be deleted. That you find it useless is irrelevant.
665:
669:
554:
are perfectly valid as examples of redirects that someone somewhere might find useful.
505:
463:
936:
869:
801:
797:
771:
753:
722:
555:
479:
475:
406:
353:
309:
260:
178:
850:
779:
169:
53:
128:
736:
695:
596:
428:
224:
196:
160:
423:
This is not a discussion about either of those potential searches - it's about
694:
Presumably you mean garlic? I don't believe salt has any effect on vampires.
497:
717:
535:
398:
301:
81:
Articles for deletion/Sandor (fictional character) (2nd nomination)
947:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
308:
as the second. Keeping this as a third choice is unnecessary.
841:
was the first choice to play this role in the film; see
916:
912:
135:
124:
120:
116:
326:
Redirecting to a disambiguation creates ambiguity? --
76:Articles for deletion/Sandor (fictional character)
177:with a link to the film is more than sufficient.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
957:). No further edits should be made to this page.
898:(even mentioned in the published book titled
8:
466:, should I be allowed to make it? If I find
277:I didn't realize that. Changed my !vote. --
542:) and they will also get the prompt for
73:
833:. I don't think it should redirect to
668:as it gets older. Also, we shouldn't
7:
72:
24:
431:item #5) says that's enough. --
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
748:which would then link them to
595:"Bad president" is offensive (
1:
940:16:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
878:00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
859:07:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
810:16:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
788:07:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
762:12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
727:05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
704:13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
690:23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
656:21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
617:22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
591:22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
564:21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
551:Sandor (fictional character)
526:20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
496:Let's try to stay on topic;
488:19:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
449:16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
425:Sandor (fictional character)
415:15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
389:14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
362:03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
344:03:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
318:01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
304:as the first suggestion and
295:17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
269:15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
245:15:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
205:09:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
187:06:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
91:Sandor (fictional character)
66:Sandor (fictional character)
60:03:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
900:The Encyclopedia of Fantasy
672:as a preemptive measure. --
974:
933:Martin Luther King Jr. Day
666:does not get less notable
538:(which will lead them to
950:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
835:Sandor (disambiguation)
746:Sandor (disambiguation)
546:. Both of them come up
544:Sandor (disambiguation)
540:Sandor (disambiguation)
403:Sandor (disambiguation)
306:Sandor (disambiguation)
221:Sandor (disambiguation)
175:Sandor (disambiguation)
150:- previous CFD closed
71:AfDs for this article:
774:, which says that if
470:a useful redirect to
462:a useful redirect to
164:bringing the article
915:. A good number of
161:notability guideline
927:Dracula's Daughter
831:Dracula's Daughter
827:merge and redirect
750:Dracula's Daughter
256:Dracula's Daughter
217:Dracula's Daughter
166:Dracula's Daughter
48:Dracula's Daughter
44:The result was
965:
952:
935:! Sincerely, --
839:Herbert Marshall
770:Please refer to
735:Please refer to
688:
676:
615:
603:
589:
577:
524:
512:
500:arguments like "
472:Anakin Skywalker
447:
435:
387:
375:
342:
330:
293:
281:
243:
231:
138:
132:
114:
56:
34:
973:
972:
968:
967:
966:
964:
963:
962:
961:
955:deletion review
948:
678:
674:
605:
601:
579:
575:
514:
510:
437:
433:
377:
373:
332:
328:
283:
279:
233:
229:
134:
105:
89:
86:
69:
54:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
971:
969:
960:
959:
943:
942:
905:Google Scholar
883:
882:
881:
880:
862:
861:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
791:
790:
765:
764:
730:
729:
709:
708:
707:
706:
692:
659:
658:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
593:
567:
566:
529:
528:
506:George W. Bush
491:
490:
464:George W. Bush
452:
451:
418:
417:
392:
391:
365:
364:
347:
346:
321:
320:
297:
272:
271:
248:
247:
208:
207:
145:
144:
85:
84:
83:
78:
70:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
970:
958:
956:
951:
945:
944:
941:
938:
934:
929:
928:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
901:
897:
893:
888:
885:
884:
879:
875:
871:
866:
865:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
821:
820:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:
793:
792:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
768:
767:
766:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
742:
738:
734:
733:
732:
731:
728:
724:
720:
719:
714:
711:
710:
705:
701:
697:
693:
691:
686:
682:
677:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
653:
649:
648:Bali ultimate
645:
642:
641:
618:
613:
609:
604:
598:
594:
592:
587:
583:
578:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
552:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:
531:
530:
527:
522:
518:
513:
507:
504:redirects to
503:
502:Bad president
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:Bad president
456:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
441:
436:
430:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
393:
390:
385:
381:
376:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
350:
349:
348:
345:
340:
336:
331:
325:
324:
323:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
298:
296:
291:
287:
282:
276:
275:
274:
273:
270:
266:
262:
257:
253:
250:
249:
246:
241:
237:
232:
227:deletions. --
226:
222:
219:
218:
213:
210:
209:
206:
202:
198:
194:
191:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
176:
171:
167:
162:
158:
153:
149:
142:
137:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:
82:
79:
77:
74:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
949:
946:
925:
913:compare here
899:
896:Google Books
886:
826:
822:
775:
740:
716:
712:
643:
547:
251:
215:
211:
192:
170:Good Article
155:
152:no consensus
151:
147:
146:
52:
45:
43:
31:
28:
892:Google News
772:WP:RFD#KEEP
597:WP:R#DELETE
478:every day.
909:Amazon.com
675:Explodicle
602:Explodicle
576:Explodicle
511:Explodicle
434:Explodicle
374:Explodicle
329:Explodicle
280:Explodicle
230:Explodicle
823:Weak keep
498:straw man
429:WP:R#KEEP
46:merge to
937:A Nobody
870:Otto4711
802:Otto4711
754:Otto4711
664:A topic
556:Otto4711
480:Otto4711
407:Otto4711
354:Otto4711
310:Otto4711
261:23skidoo
212:Redirect
179:Otto4711
141:View log
921:readers
917:editors
851:DHowell
780:DHowell
776:someone
108:protect
103:history
55:MBisanz
907:, and
798:WP:RFD
696:JulesH
644:delete
548:before
536:Sandor
476:WP:RFD
399:Sandor
302:Sandor
197:JulesH
193:Delete
148:Delete
136:delete
112:delete
825:, or
254:with
252:Merge
139:) – (
129:views
121:watch
117:links
16:<
919:and
887:Keep
874:talk
855:talk
847:here
845:and
843:here
806:talk
784:talk
758:talk
737:WP:N
723:talk
713:Keep
700:talk
670:salt
652:talk
560:talk
484:talk
411:talk
358:talk
314:talk
265:talk
225:WP:N
201:talk
183:talk
159:Our
125:logs
99:talk
95:edit
829:to
741:not
718:DGG
401:or
214:to
168:to
894:,
876:)
857:)
808:)
800:.
786:)
760:)
752:.
725:)
702:)
654:)
562:)
486:)
413:)
405:.
371:--
360:)
316:)
267:)
203:)
185:)
127:|
123:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
51:.
872:(
853:(
804:(
782:(
756:(
721:(
698:(
687:)
685:C
683:/
681:T
679:(
650:(
614:)
612:C
610:/
608:T
606:(
588:)
586:C
584:/
582:T
580:(
558:(
523:)
521:C
519:/
517:T
515:(
482:(
446:)
444:C
442:/
440:T
438:(
409:(
386:)
384:C
382:/
380:T
378:(
356:(
341:)
339:C
337:/
335:T
333:(
312:(
292:)
290:C
288:/
286:T
284:(
263:(
242:)
240:C
238:/
236:T
234:(
199:(
181:(
143:)
133:(
131:)
93:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.