Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Cambias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Zach Slater. And delete. Redirect target can be changed as desired. Sandstein 08:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethan Cambias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is written like a biography of a fictional character, and WP:PLOT may take this article so seriously. After reading this character's profile, this character lasted for two years, and no impact from this character was made. No books that cover this character were made, no news about him were made, and no academic researches about him were made. Even if the previously deleted revisions have been restored after copyright issues were resolved, there is no study about him. He may have been significant as the son of Zach Slater, but he had done other malicious things to people that may not justify merger to "Zach Slater". No one, however, for five years after his death has taken him so seriously. Plus, he is different from James Scott, the portrayer. DGG may have good valid analyses on fictional characters, but this case is different. James Scott's interview about this character won't hold up water, and neither do soap recaps. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as wholly unreferenced to any sources and consisting wholly of WP:PLOT. — Fourthords | =
Λ = | 17:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Redirect to Zach Slater or List of All My Children characters. That is what should have been done. The character being different than his portrayer is not even remotely relevant. Plenty of, if not most, actors are different than their characters. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know... if many articles of non-notable characters are gone, then I'm planning to nominate the list for AFD. That list has too many problems, yet I can't PROD it because... there is too much praise for keeping it, especially from you. Ethan has done many things that justifies against merging or redirecting to Zach Slater. In fact, Ethan is more than Zach's son; he had a relationship with Kendall Hart and done many bad things to people significantly, yet no academic or critic discusses him. Remember: this article was deleted by PROD, and someone created a content that infringed copyrights. Fortunately, the administrator restored non-infringing revisions. --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your arguments. But you're telling me that once you have succeeded in deleting all the All My Children character articles you perceive to be non-notable, you are then going to nominate the All My Children characters list for deletion? Well, that'll only help to validate to a lot of people that your true intention is to rid Wikipedia of all soap opera character articles. I have not praised that character list whatsoever! I have said that non-notable characters should be redirected there. Why? Because doing so is standard procedure when it comes to characters that cannot have a stand-alone article. I have said that character lists, full of non-notable characters or characters without a lot of history, is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Shall I point you to examples? Ethan "having done too much" has absolutely nothing to do with redirecting him to either of the articles I mentioned. Adequate information can be covered about him in either article, and soap opera critics have discussed him. Soap opera critics have discussed every soap opera character featured on the soap opera they are discussing. You continue to display to me that you need more mentoring on AfDs, and that you need to try harder to hold back on the attitude when someone criticizes your choice or choices. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relisting due to no participation at all during the first relist period. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of All My Children characters. No sourced content to be merged. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources available to WP:verify notability or add anything substantial beyond a WP:PLOT summary, which is what Wikipedia is not. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to character list as noted above. Claims that content about a recurring character on a nationally broadcast television series is unverifiable are simply incorrect, as obviously the series itself is a reliable source for its own content. Character lists are necessary for any TV series article, and when the series is long-running and/or has a large ensemble cast, the size of such a list alone merits splitting it from the parent article. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to recreation, and redirect to List of All My Children characters. Character is already initially covered on the list. Since there is no current sourcing for the article, there is no WP:V verifiable material to be considered for merging. Since wp:notability and improved sourcing are possible, no prejudice to recreation. Unscintillating (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of current sourcing ≠ unverifiable. Nor do we have a practice of deleting material just because it is unsourced at present outside of WP:BLP concerns. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been listed at AfD since January 11 and currently has zero sources. As per WP:BURDEN within WP:V, any challenged material without sourcing can be deleted. In this case, that is all of the content in the article. And WP:Deletion policy lists WP:V as one of the reasons to delete articles. WP:Deletion policy "is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Perhaps the previous comment has to do with WP:NRVE, in which evidence of sources is sufficient to establish notability, but the sources themselves do not actually need to be known. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you "challenging" it because you actually have good reason to think it is incorrect, or are you "challenging" it purely because it is unsourced at present? postdlf (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not find anything that verifies this topic's notability. I searched him in Google News and Soap Opera Digest; I found no significant real-world coverage, i.e. reception, reaction, and/or development. I don't treat fictional element as if it were merely fictional. Sam and Diane has real-world coverage; Ethan Cambias rarely does at trivial (not significant) best or never does at all. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We were talking about verifiability, not notability. Any main or recurring character is an element of the notable TV series topic that should be covered to some extent, even if only in a list of characters from that series. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not challenging the material, I'm supporting a legitimate challenge that has existed since October 2011. Something I don't understand is why you as an administrator seem to be saying that it is our "practice" to ignore the policy, when the policy is marked, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Why do you want me to answer a question that is only relevant if I agree that we can ignore policy? Do you agree that it is policy-based and reasonable as per WP:BURDEN that I remove all of the prose of this article and replace it with the text for Ethan Cambias from List of All My Children characters? Unscintillating (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the material should be removed under WP:BURDEN, then you are "challenging" it, and I asked you whether you are challenging it because you actually have good reason to think it is incorrect, or are you challenging it purely because it presently lacks sources? I can guarantee you that if you went around deleting all material you saw that currently lacked sources just because it was unsourced, you'd have some problems. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems reasonable to review the WP:BURDEN policy. Here is the relevant text from WP:V. Again, this policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Note the footnote from Jimbo Wales that says that unsourced material should be aggressively removed, and that this is true of all unsourced information. The first subsection defines "challenge", and the second subsection is the one about removing the material. The source for this material is Wikipedia:Verifiability#When_a_reliable_source_is_required.
- If you think the material should be removed under WP:BURDEN, then you are "challenging" it, and I asked you whether you are challenging it because you actually have good reason to think it is incorrect, or are you challenging it purely because it presently lacks sources? I can guarantee you that if you went around deleting all material you saw that currently lacked sources just because it was unsourced, you'd have some problems. postdlf (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not find anything that verifies this topic's notability. I searched him in Google News and Soap Opera Digest; I found no significant real-world coverage, i.e. reception, reaction, and/or development. I don't treat fictional element as if it were merely fictional. Sam and Diane has real-world coverage; Ethan Cambias rarely does at trivial (not significant) best or never does at all. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you "challenging" it because you actually have good reason to think it is incorrect, or are you "challenging" it purely because it is unsourced at present? postdlf (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been listed at AfD since January 11 and currently has zero sources. As per WP:BURDEN within WP:V, any challenged material without sourcing can be deleted. In this case, that is all of the content in the article. And WP:Deletion policy lists WP:V as one of the reasons to delete articles. WP:Deletion policy "is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Perhaps the previous comment has to do with WP:NRVE, in which evidence of sources is sufficient to establish notability, but the sources themselves do not actually need to be known. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of current sourcing ≠ unverifiable. Nor do we have a practice of deleting material just because it is unsourced at present outside of WP:BLP concerns. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [policy statement elided, due to objection]
- Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How you think that is responsive to my question is beyond me, and it's more than a little obnoxious to flood a discussion with a big block of policy text as if that constitutes discourse. My question, which you still haven't answered, is about how you are interpreting "challenge", which the policy text itself doesn't answer (no, it doesn't define "challenge"), and you are also ignoring the reasonable qualifiers in both the policy language ("Whether and how quickly this should happen...") and in Jimbo's quote ("Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information") to somehow read in a justification for removing any presently unsourced material just because it is unsourced. See also WP:WIKILAWYERING. Never mind the fact that the TV series is itself a source for its own content, but whatever. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've lived with a person that had a JD degree, we never had conversations suddenly escalate like this. IMO, the material was challenged on 1 October 2011 by AwamerT. If the admin will look back he/she will see that in response to the question I asked a question, and I also asked another question, one intended to reduce our differences—but the response IMO has been IDHT. The only measure/metric the admin has offered in how to use this WP:BURDEN policy is that editors that do so can expect to "have some problems". "obnoxious" "no" "as if that constitutes discourse" "flood" "you are...ignoring", "Wikilawyering", how are these words improving the encyclopedia? There is a connection here that those words are a response to a review of a Wikipedia policy. I had no intention to offend or do anything other than have a collegial discussion here. I have removed the policy statement due to the objection. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How you think that is responsive to my question is beyond me, and it's more than a little obnoxious to flood a discussion with a big block of policy text as if that constitutes discourse. My question, which you still haven't answered, is about how you are interpreting "challenge", which the policy text itself doesn't answer (no, it doesn't define "challenge"), and you are also ignoring the reasonable qualifiers in both the policy language ("Whether and how quickly this should happen...") and in Jimbo's quote ("Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information") to somehow read in a justification for removing any presently unsourced material just because it is unsourced. See also WP:WIKILAWYERING. Never mind the fact that the TV series is itself a source for its own content, but whatever. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this AFD doesn't turn into a battle: see WP:BATTLEFIELD. --George Ho (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See File:Ethan and Simone.jpg, where the nominator has filed to get the picture from this article deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- off-topic, but You haven't explained why you added the non-free image in one list; even so, this use may also violate WP:NFLISTS, unless you explain why it doesn't violate it. --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the picture to a potential redirect target so that the article could be deleted without concern about losing a part that is useful. Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, per WP:non-free use rationale guideline, you must add a rationale. You can't just save an image from deletion; in fact, you must explain to readers the reason the image is used in each separate article --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The history shows that the nominator of this AfD has twice nominated to get this image speedy deleted on the current article, (here is one diff), and each time been refused, although in both cases the admin explanations are missing. This looks like an issue between the nominator and the admins. There is also an apparently incorrect deletion of the picture that was in this article on 3 September 2011, which was deleted on 1 September as follows:
- Still, per WP:non-free use rationale guideline, you must add a rationale. You can't just save an image from deletion; in fact, you must explain to readers the reason the image is used in each separate article --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the picture to a potential redirect target so that the article could be deleted without concern about losing a part that is useful. Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- off-topic, but You haven't explained why you added the non-free image in one list; even so, this use may also violate WP:NFLISTS, unless you explain why it doesn't violate it. --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2011-09-01T17:36:08 After Midnight (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Ethan Cambias (C).jpg" (F5: Unused non-free media file for more than 7 days)
- Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at revisions: I nominated for deletion many times because the rationale was meant for Simone Torres article, not Ethan Cambias, but I couldn't said the same reason until now because I feared that I might offend soap fans, and back then I was not aware about other templates, so I chose what I chose. As for nominating an image as "orphaned", that's a different story. Think what you want, but I don't know if I've convinced you that I'm honest here. See history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ethan_and_Simone.jpg&action=history. --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I also agree with the redirect (after the deletion) going to Zach Slater. Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2012 (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.