Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erreth-Akbe

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 merge to List of characters in Earthsea. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erreth-Akbe[edit]

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

No notability outside book universe. Article consists solely of plot summary. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Erreth-Akbe is discussed in Hart and Slovic's Literature and the Environment, in Phillis Jean Perry's Teaching Fantasy Novels, and in Michael Faerber's A Dictionary of Literary Symbols, as well as in peer-reviewed articles by Manlove (1983), Hatfield (1993), and Trębicki (2011), among others. Certainly enough to satisfy GNG and demonstrate "notability outside the book universe". AFDISNOTCLEANUP Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of characters in Earthsea Literature and the Environment is weird - what I see seems to read more like a novel summary than literary analysis. Ditto for Teaching Fantasy Novels - all the mentions of his name seem to be right in the midst of a summary. There are a few sentences in From Homer to Harry Potter: A Handbook on Myth and Fantasy but frankly I don't think they are sufficient for stand-alone notability. Citations from scholar don't impress me either, same issue - those are plot summaries or quotes from the novel. I am afraid that User:Newimpartial has not read any of the sources, just looked at google hits in books/scholar. What we need to prove his notability is analysis that goes beyond plot summary, and that is lacking not only in the article but in the sources I see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Piotrus and I disagree about what constitutes a TRIVIALMENTION, but it would have been better for him to AGF rather than launching a personal attack. I did in fact look at the sources, as anyone who looks carefully at the search results would note - I did not include any of the results that were only to the Ring of Erreth-Akbe, or that were mentions in passing, for example. The discussion on page 79 of Literature and the Environment is (1) not a trivial mention; (2) about Erreth-Akbe the character, not about the ring, and (3) is not a summary but a critical comment about the way the legend of Erreth-Akbe is used in the text. That and From Homer to Harry Potter alone would be enough to satisfy WP:N, but there are in fact many other mentions, including whole thesis or articles in which the Ring of Erreth-Akbe is prominent and, as M. Stawicki argued (1997, and I don't have the Polish to put the passage in context, unfortunately): "Erreth-Akbe must have existed, if his magical ring is found by Ged." :) Newimpartial (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Piotrus makes the case in the middle of trying to refute notability: RS summaries are necessarily transformative and thus count as independent, significant coverage, and hence GNG is met even without inappropriate ad hominem allegations. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Piotrus. Even if the character has received coverage, they have received this coverage as part of coverage of the broader work that they are part of, which is what is principally notable. Only the most exceptionally well-known fictional characters such as Darth Vader are part of the public consciousness independently from the work they are a part of. Sandstein 07:52, 2 December 2017 (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.