Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rickon Stark (3rd nomination)

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. All contributors in this discussion are in favour of this decision. (non-admin closure) TedEdwards (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rickon Stark

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

Minor Character in both the books and the series. This page is completely unnessecary because he is such a minor character. This page has even been deleted twice before, and his character hasn't developed that much (only two extra Game of Thrones' episodes he appeared in) since the last nomination.TedEdwards (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters per above. TedEdwards (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's Well written and sourced. He has been on the series from the pilot untill Season 6, episode 9, And he is still alive in the books. Plus nothing is wrong with the article. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appearing for the most of the time Game of Thrones has been airing does not mean he should have and article e.g Pycelle does not have an article, nor does Hodor. Despite all the sources, he is still a minor character and the article is almost about nothing. TedEdwards (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC) In fact, he doesn't even appear in over three quarters of the Game of Thrones episodes from seasons 1-6, his tenure on Game of Thrones. And why does him being still alive in the books mean anything, several characters are still alive in the books, doesn't mean they've all got articles. TedEdwards (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of information(Nothing is wrong with it and since he is still alive in the books, the article will continue to grow).. If you want to delete this. then you should also delete all the much much worst character articles from Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Doctor Who and The Walking Dead. This is well sourced and contains a lot of information. And the character and actor has recived a lot of coverage from this show/books. - AffeL (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved significantly since it got nominated for deletion by user TedEdwards, due to edits by myself, and it will keep improving. How come no one is deleting any of the characters from the franchises i mentioned above. Many character articles from those are barely even sourced at all and are also very short. - AffeL (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there a minor characters which barely affect the plot in a franchise, these articles are pointless and should be deleted, and maybe I will personally nominate them. Rickon is not a major character in any major plotlines in either the book or series. You are completely wrong that Rickon recieved a lot of coverage from Game of Thrones. I'm fairly sure he didn't have a single line in Season 6, and didn't have many other lines in any other seasons. And I've just noticed half the sources on Rickon's page are from tertiary sources and therefore will have to be removed as they are unreliable. TedEdwards (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, what makes you think Rickon will suddenly become a major character in the books? TedEdwards (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I fixed those so called "issues" you hade. The article is now more than perfect!.. I might even nominated it for a Good Article later when you are done trying(for some unknown reason) to delete this perfectly fine article. - AffeL (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book chapters are pointless sources, it is implied that all the info in those sections comes from the books. Just saying. And the only reason why you're trying to save the article is because you've done so much work, in your view, to make the article "perfect" (which is impossible, there will always be faults). And I appreciate that, it is hard for someone who spent so much time working so hard on something to seen their work thrown away as such. But you have to realise that if Wikipedia has articles of such minor things such as this article, Wikipedia would be littered with pointless articles, and that's why I think the article, unfortunately, has to go. And why do I think that this character is minor? Well, if you removed Rickon's character from the storyline of ASoIaF or Got, the plot would change negliably, and therefore, the character is minor. And I do agree with you that there are some character articles in Star Wars and LotR at least that should be removed. And could you answer my question, why do you think Rickon will suddenly become a major character in the books? TedEdwards (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never said for a fact that he will become a, what you call "major" character in the books. Just that the article will get even bigger with time, being that he's still alive in the books. And don't lie. This article is perfect. no doubt about that. - AffeL (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AffeL Perfection is where the article can be improved no further, this article could always be improved more, as could every single other article on Wikipedia. However, if I fail in getting this page deleted, I see no reason for me to try to stop you nominating this page for a good article, I just don't think this page will meet the criteria. TedEdwards (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, not trying to rude or anything. But I will have to stop commenting here. For the reason that you clearly have some kind of grudge or hate against the character or the actor that plays him. And also for the hostile behavior towards me. For that I will say, "In case I don't see you... good afternoon, good evening, and good night". - AffeL (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent, non-trivial RS in the current article. The Wrap and International Business Times posted significant commentary just about Rickon. There are scads of other Battle of the Bastards reviews (Winning an Emmy is pretty strongly correlated with that, you know) which deal with his death, but those two are sufficient by themselves to establish that the GNG is met. Sure, he was merged or redirected twice before, but independent coverage and commentary of this fictional element fundamentally changed after he died in the show. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. I would add the following sources that exclusively cover Rickon Stark's storyline and some unintended irony in that storyline: (Spoilers obviously) [1], [2], [3], [4]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources already provided to prove the notability of Rickon Spiderone 14:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could I point out that most of the sources on this page point towards a single scene in the entire 60 episodes in Game of Thrones. Not really what makes a character major; major characters would have several sources refering to many different episodes, not just one scene. Rickon Stark is NOT a major character. TedEdwards (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC) By the way, you can't say this article will grow because there is no certainty he will appear in any future ASoIaF books, he might just be ignored or found dead. TedEdwards (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I listed my two sources above is because they do not. Your statement here, that Rickon Stark is not a major character, while arguably correct is irrelevant to whether the article is kept as a standalone or merged. Do multiple independent reliable sources cover Rickon Stark in a non-trivial manner? Yes, they do. As such, his status as a minor character or not is irrelevant. As fictional franchises grow in size and popularity, the minor characters get more coverage, sometimes more coverage than major characters in other fictional franchises. Rickon now has more coverage than Mortimer Folchart, for instance. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changed my mind, since I can trust the page will become very well sourced if suitable edits are made.-TedEdwards (talk) 09:38, 9 October 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.