547:] spends two full pages 31-33 in a detailed literary analysis of the character. Reasonable people can differ about whether the coverage I pointed out is significant enough. However, there are other sources that I have not yet had the opportunity to add to the article, and it is worth noting that this fictional character has appeared in a best-selling novel, two Hollywood films, a TV movie and a musical play that was performed in New York and London. The character is also in a film in production now. I believe that the character meets the
978:, and not one requiring deletion. Simply put... with multiple sources being available, we have notability. Addressing (requested) sourcing in an issue we may address over time and through regular editing. If any statement within an article is worrisome to an editor not willing to fix the issue themselves, it could be tagged with a "" tag so as to draw attention from those others willing to
543:, which any editor is allowed to do for any good reason. "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted. The first objection kills the PROD." Opposition can certainly be expected when the article survived an AfD in 2008. I added two sources to the article yesterday. Rather than a brief mention, one of these,
1176:. Even with the combined mentions from all the others sources it doesn't amount to more than a few sentences that could be included in the article. As WP:GNG requires significant content from multiple sources, the best solution is to include the significant content in an "analysis" section in the novel article, which deserves to be reinforced first before anything is split from it.
638:
895:
If the discussion and analysis is more than trivial, then why is almost none of it in the article? All there is in the article is a mention of how/why King used her to tell Carrie's story, and mention of a critic's reaction to the shock effect of her sudden death in the 1999 film sequel. Where's the
668:
Sorry about the link, I just tried to follow the procedure for deletion nomination that I had done before. Obviously I messed up somewhere, because as you know, the original discussion page-to-article link did not work, so I don't know where the link to the 2008 discussion was supposed to be, or how
341:
story just briefly mentions Sue Snell, further down in the article, when it says, "But one of the girls, Sue Snell, played by Amy Irving in the film and
Gabriella Wilde in the remake, feels sorry for her and persuades her boyfriend to take Carrie to the prom." That's it. Nothing else. I know of four
951:
editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their
323:
315:
868:
These need not be used to source the article, just so as long as they are available. While we do not have nor require an article on every fictional character in every film, it is common sense and common practice that we can and do have articles on those fictional elements that meet
452:, it is hoped the closer will recognize it as an extension of your original deletion nomination and not "count" it as a supportive deletion !vote by some other editor. Perhaps you might modify the self-aggrandizing "per nom" to a more accurate as less controversial "as nom"?
916:
Verifiability and reliability do not refer to sources that are somewhere "out there" that are "available". It refers to sources that are cited in the article. How can reader "verify" a source if he/she doesn't know what the source is? It's inane.
768:
because the arguments in the first AfD still hold true 5 years later, and partially for the irony value of agreeing with Otto4711's past keep vote. (For those of you not familiar with his history, feel free to ping me on my talk page.)
960:
and hopefully clarifies confusions, through it telling us that topic notability is dependent upon sources being available for use through regular editing, and not dependent upon available sources being used within the article. The
896:
real-world impact of her character? The character's legacy? Its effect on culture? Literary analysis? Psychological analysis? Almost everything in the is just explanation of her actions in the primary sources. WP:Notability states:
1173:
544:
319:
682:
As or the "prod", that's what I was referring to. I've come to understand over the years that the html placed at the top of the articles are variously called "templates", "tags", etc. Sorry if my jargon wasn't perfect.
818:
1052:, and are important members of Dumbledore's Army and Harry's circle of friends, who risk their lives by fighting in the climatic Battle of Hogwarts at the end of the series. Should they get their own article?
166:
446:
And it has caused the same confusions in other discussions as well, which is why it is discouraged. and should more properly and through common usage be part of your initial deletion nomination rationale.
866:
215:
342:
newspaper articles in which my name appeared over the last 40 years, for various reasons. But that doesn't make me notable. This is not a character that is a major focus on secondary works about
745:
1011:"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."
478:
Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
327:
705:
812:
580:
269:
119:
422:
I seem to recall seeing it done in other such discussions, and I don't see any harm it placing it before my explanation. Please do not strike any portion of my comments.
1214:
160:
904:
Sources that establish notability need not be used to source the article, just so as long as they are available? That's absurd. Of course articles should have to
126:
725:
210:
197:
865:
available showing this character discussed and analyzed in multiple independent book sources... and in a manner that is more-than-trivial in nature.
511:
Sadly, "should refrain" does not equate to "must refrain", but you have brought up a point of courtesy to be remembered and applied. Thank you.
372:. Everything about her, including the material in the two new sources, can easily fit into the articles on the novel and the media adaptations.
310:
from the article, stated in her edit summary that "Several books discuss the character", and in a subsequent edit summary, after adding stated
276:
1209:
943:
The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable
17:
438:
833:
800:
1204:
1086:
898:"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."
1220:
1185:
1160:
1123:
1090:
1061:
994:
926:
885:
778:
757:
737:
717:
692:
653:
625:
597:
566:
523:
502:
464:
409:
381:
293:
61:
593:
386:
The nominator doesn't need to say delete, its understood. And you are the nom, so the per nom bit makes no sense at all.
242:
237:
92:
87:
246:
181:
96:
1239:
40:
148:
974:
As for the why more of the available sources have not been used in the article itself.. that would seem a matter for
794:
302:
There is nothing about this character that requires its own article independent of the article on the original novel
634:
Likely a problem cause by how it was listed this second time.. so I just fixed it so it is easier to see and find.
229:
79:
1181:
991:
882:
650:
520:
461:
931:
I understand your concerns, but developed by many others who did not think it "inane", we have our guideline on
790:
932:
840:
426:
142:
957:
1235:
1057:
922:
688:
434:
377:
289:
57:
36:
908:
the sources that provide notability. It's an integral part of
Notability. Again, WP:Notability states:
576:
138:
1177:
984:
875:
643:
513:
454:
979:
858:
1197:, as there is some indication of importance of Snell, but not enough to justify an entire article.
826:
618:
559:
174:
975:
1080:
1040:
Casliber says below "Two movies and play. Should be plenty of commentary out there." Really? The
806:
774:
188:
314:. Let's look at those three sources: There is a passage that briefly mentions the character in
753:
733:
713:
589:
346:, as she has not transcended her origins as simply one character from a notable book, the way
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1234:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
936:
854:
540:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1138:
1101:
1053:
918:
684:
480:
430:
387:
373:
285:
53:
962:
870:
548:
473:
1131:
1075:
major character in a book, two movies and play. Should be plenty of commentary out there.
1100:
As coverage has been found, I believe this now meets the general notability guidelines.
1194:
1169:
611:
552:
333:
that isn't about the character, but is about Judy Greer and Portia
Doubleday, who play
318:
that was cited as the first source in the article, and of the two new sources, we have
233:
154:
83:
911:
1076:
770:
347:
1172:. There is coverage in independent sources, the only significant instance being in
749:
729:
709:
584:
610:
Nominator, please link to the 2008 AfD debate, which closed as "Keep". Thank you.
263:
113:
1134:. Another character has previously been turned into a redirect by someone else.
1041:
539:
I most certainly did not remove an AfD tag, which I would never do. I removed a
357:
352:
1007:
A subsequent passage in WP:NRVE that you did not include in your quote says,
225:
75:
67:
1137:
If anyone sees coverage of them also, they might be worth keeping as well.
1019:, but merely being mentioned is not notability. An article has to explain
365:
965:
requires sources be available, but it nowhere states that they be used.
1130:
Note, nominator has also prodded another character from this series,
284:
Insufficient material in secondary sources to establish notability
1228:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1015:
Someone posted a link to a list of books on Google where she is
914:
evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
910:"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow
52:. No prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion.
306:, and those on its various media adaptations. Cullen328,
1135:
956:", a not-so-inane concept that follows the precepts of
746:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
322:, and a passage that even more briefly mentions her in
311:
307:
259:
255:
251:
109:
105:
101:
1027:
doesn't make a character deserving of its own article.
825:
581:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 17
173:
839:
575:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
187:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1242:). No further edits should be made to this page.
216:Articles for deletion/Sue Snell (2nd nomination)
706:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
744:Note: This debate has been included in the
724:Note: This debate has been included in the
704:Note: This debate has been included in the
743:
723:
703:
726:list of Film-related deletion discussions
208:
324:another book that briefly mentions her
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
635:
207:
24:
636:
312:"article now has three sources"
211:Articles for deletion/Sue Snell
1:
1023:the topic is notable. Merely
579:). I have transcluded it to
963:primary notability guideline
549:General notability guideline
277:Snell_(2nd_nomination) Stats
1259:
1221:22:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
1186:18:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
1161:10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
1124:10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
1091:09:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
1062:17:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
1050:five books and six movies
995:06:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
976:regular editing over time
927:06:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
886:04:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
779:03:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
758:02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
738:02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
718:02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
693:05:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
654:04:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
626:01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
598:01:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
567:01:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
524:10:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
503:10:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
465:07:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
410:03:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
382:01:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
294:01:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
62:18:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
1231:Please do not modify it.
1174:Hollywood's Stephen King
1025:being in books or movies
861:of 3 years ago, sources
545:Hollywood's Stephen King
32:Please do not modify it.
980:deal with it themselves
308:who removed the AfD tag
206:AfDs for this article:
196:Note: Previous AfD is
300:Comment by nominator
669:to have created it.
952:immediate citation
939:, which explains "
935:, within which is
871:inclusion criteria
573:Automated comment:
48:The result was
857:. As provided at
760:
740:
720:
600:
443:
429:comment added by
1250:
1233:
1219:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1202:
1201:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1120:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1048:books appear in
1014:
987:
954:
946:
878:
844:
843:
829:
646:
641:
640:
639:
623:
621:Let's discuss it
615:
587:
571:
564:
562:Let's discuss it
556:
516:
499:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
457:
442:
423:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
320:one of the books
279:
267:
249:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1240:deletion review
1229:
1215:
1210:
1205:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1178:Folken de Fanel
1155:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1143:
1140:
1132:Chris Hargensen
1118:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1008:
985:
949:
947:", clarifying "
940:
876:
786:
644:
637:
619:
613:
585:
560:
554:
514:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
455:
424:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
337:character. The
275:
240:
224:
221:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1256:
1254:
1245:
1244:
1224:
1223:
1195:Carrie (novel)
1188:
1170:Carrie (novel)
1163:
1127:
1126:
1094:
1093:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
969:
968:
967:
966:
958:editing policy
901:
900:
889:
888:
847:
846:
782:
781:
762:
761:
741:
721:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
629:
628:
602:
601:
569:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
506:
505:
470:
469:
468:
467:
447:
415:
414:
413:
412:
282:
281:
220:
219:
218:
213:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1255:
1243:
1241:
1237:
1232:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1042:Patil sisters
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
996:
993:
992:
989:
988:
981:
977:
973:
972:
971:
970:
964:
959:
955:
953:
945:
944:
938:
934:
933:WP:Notability
930:
929:
928:
924:
920:
915:
913:
907:
903:
902:
899:
894:
891:
890:
887:
884:
883:
880:
879:
872:
867:
864:
860:
856:
852:
849:
848:
842:
838:
835:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
814:
811:
808:
805:
802:
799:
796:
792:
789:
788:Find sources:
784:
783:
780:
776:
772:
767:
764:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
742:
739:
735:
731:
727:
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
701:
694:
690:
686:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
655:
652:
651:
648:
647:
633:
632:
631:
630:
627:
624:
622:
617:
616:
609:
606:
605:
604:
603:
599:
595:
591:
588:
582:
578:
574:
570:
568:
565:
563:
558:
557:
550:
546:
542:
538:
535:
534:
525:
522:
521:
518:
517:
510:
509:
508:
507:
504:
501:
500:
479:
475:
472:
471:
466:
463:
462:
459:
458:
451:
448:
445:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
411:
408:
407:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
349:
348:Bilbo Baggins
345:
340:
336:
332:
330:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
278:
274:
271:
265:
261:
257:
253:
248:
244:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:
217:
214:
212:
209:
199:
195:
194:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1230:
1227:
1206:Brambleberry
1190:
1165:
1139:
1102:
1097:
1083:
1072:
1049:
1046:Harry Potter
1045:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1010:
1009:
990:
983:
950:
948:
942:
941:
909:
905:
897:
892:
881:
874:
862:
850:
836:
830:
822:
815:
809:
803:
797:
787:
765:
649:
642:
620:
612:
607:
572:
561:
553:
536:
519:
512:
481:
477:
460:
453:
449:
425:— Preceding
388:
369:
362:Harry Potter
361:
351:
343:
338:
334:
328:
303:
299:
283:
272:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1054:Nightscream
919:Nightscream
813:free images
685:Nightscream
431:Nightscream
374:Nightscream
286:Nightscream
161:free images
54:Mark Arsten
912:verifiable
358:Dumbledore
353:The Hobbit
339:Daily Mail
329:Daily Mail
1236:talk page
1216:RiverClan
1077:Cas Liber
1044:from the
1017:mentioned
859:first AFd
750:• Gene93k
730:• Gene93k
710:• Gene93k
350:has from
335:two other
226:Sue Snell
76:Sue Snell
68:Sue Snell
37:talk page
1238:or in a
1087:contribs
986:Schmidt,
877:Schmidt,
771:Jclemens
645:Schmidt,
515:Schmidt,
456:Schmidt,
439:contribs
427:unsigned
366:Falstaff
326:, and a
316:the book
270:View log
120:View log
39:or in a
937:WP:NRVE
893:Comment
855:WP:NRVE
819:WP refs
807:scholar
608:Comment
586:Snotbot
476:states
450:However
370:Henry V
243:protect
238:history
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
791:Google
614:Cullen
577:step 3
555:Cullen
474:WP:AFD
344:Carrie
304:Carrie
247:delete
139:Google
97:delete
1193:- to
1191:Merge
1166:Merge
1156:Focus
1119:Focus
834:JSTOR
795:books
498:Focus
405:Focus
368:from
364:, or
360:from
356:, or
331:story
264:views
256:watch
252:links
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1182:talk
1168:to
1098:Keep
1081:talk
1073:Keep
1058:talk
923:talk
906:cite
853:per
851:Keep
827:FENS
801:news
775:talk
766:Keep
754:talk
734:talk
714:talk
689:talk
541:PROD
537:Keep
435:talk
378:talk
290:talk
260:logs
234:talk
230:edit
198:here
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
1021:why
863:are
841:TWL
596:»
583:.
268:– (
189:TWL
118:– (
1211:of
1184:)
1089:)
1060:)
982:.
925:)
873:.
821:)
777:)
756:)
748:.
736:)
728:.
716:)
708:.
691:)
592:•
551:.
441:)
437:•
380:)
292:)
262:|
258:|
254:|
250:|
245:|
241:|
236:|
232:|
193:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1200:ö
1180:(
1153:m
1150:a
1147:e
1144:r
1141:D
1116:m
1113:a
1110:e
1107:r
1104:D
1084:·
1079:(
1056:(
921:(
845:)
837:·
831:·
823:·
816:·
810:·
804:·
798:·
793:(
785:(
773:(
752:(
732:(
712:(
687:(
594:c
590:t
495:m
492:a
489:e
486:r
483:D
433:(
402:m
399:a
396:e
393:r
390:D
376:(
288:(
280:)
273:·
266:)
228:(
200:.
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.