Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Bass

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Bass[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. Most sources appear to stay within the realm of WP:TRIVIALMENTION, as they discuss the show or the actor portraying this character. Specifically, no sources show how this character has any independent notability from the books or TV series in which it appears. AadaamS (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the fact that fictional characters can be noteworthy. As a central character for the entire series I personally believe that a stand alone article is relevant. Your reasoning would apply to all fictional characters that have a stand alone article. You gave the same reasons for another stand alone character article in the same series here and the result was keep. Brocicle (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The non-admin closure of Serena vdW was closed by a non-admin user for unclear reasons, I have asked that user for clarification and received no response. Consensus cannot override the GNG and it was never demonstrated how Serena vdW article lives up to the WP:GNG. Complex & very famous fictional characters with a long publishing history may be notable, anyone who tried to have the article for Sherlock Holmes deleted would surely fail. Sherlock Holmes being a famous fictional detective doesn't help the notability of this character. Also, it's not editors who ultimately decide which characters are notable, it is reliable secondary sources. If you wish to keep this article, you must find enough WPRS doing more than trivial mentions and then the article will be kept. AadaamS (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add a maintenance tag for more sources rather than asking for the article to be deleted? A lot of articles that don't have many sources or reliable sources have the tag rather than a request for deletion, regardless of what the topic is. Don't see how these pages should be any different as I've seen no tag requesting for more sources on either of the pages you've asked to be deleted. Brocicle (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I assume that the best available sources have already been added to the article. Why would this article need more sources? It already has many sources and as they are, they don't WP:V verify notability. Also, the WP:GNG is (and should be) hard to pass for fictional characters, it is not at all uncommon for fictional character articles to be deleted. AadaamS (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom's comments immediately preceding demonstrate not only failure to comply with WP:BEFORE but also an approach that is incompatible with basic policy of our deletion policy and guidelines. Assuming that "the best available sources have already been added to the article" is contrary to empirical experience and shows a failure to evaluate the subject individually. A cursory GScholar search turns up numerous references in academic coverage of popular culture. "Playing dress-up: digital fashion and gamic extensions of televisual experience in Gossip Girl's Second Life", "Gossip Girls in a transmedia world: The sexual and technological anxieties of integral reality", or "Drama is the cure for gossip: Television's turn to theatricality in a time of media transition" may not be your idea of rewarding reading (nor mine!), but dismissing a sizable body of academic criticism without examining it is not a legitimate approach to notability analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references from Gscholar you mention seem to be behind paywalls. Do you have access to them in full? What I gather from the summaries is that none of those references centre on the Chuck Bass character, but they do a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of this character along with many other characters in the series. That would help prove notability for the series as a whole, but not for this individual character. Do the references provide lenghty analysis of concept & evolution of this fictional character? AadaamS (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as whether or not this is because it's a fictional TV character, there's enough to at least suggest a separate article of information for now as a lead TV character. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.