Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peeta Mellark

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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peeta Mellark

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article does not meet the general notability guideine. Nearly all sources cited are the book itself, and those that aren't do not give non-trivial coverage of the article subject itself. 22090912l (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP:GNG, contrary to nom. Sources covering:

https://screenrant.com/hunger-games-peeta-mellark-character-strengths-vs-weaknesses/

https://screenrant.com/hunger-games-peeta-most-positive-negative-traits/

https://bookroo.com/quotes/peeta-mellark

https://collider.com/hunger-games-movies-peeta-mellark-why-its-bad/

See also WP:NAF.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, two of those sources are from the same publication, meaning that they are counted as one for the purpose of establishing notability. Secondly, none of those sources currently exist in the article. Thirdly, whilst screenrant is listed as a reliable source for entertainment-related subjects, I can't find anything suggesting that the other two are remotely reliable, meaning that only one reliable publication has been found to report on this subject, which doesn't seem to meet notability in my view. 22090912l (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not an article that meets or fails the notability guideline, it's a topic: "Article content does not determine notability". It seems to me the nomination is flawed in that the WP:BEFORE search as required at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has not been done properly: Aside from the sources (or at least source, depending on what counts) found by RadioactiveBoulevardier, there is quite an amount of scholarship on the character, with some academic publications focussing on Peeta Mellark as their main topic, like this book chapter or this paper. So, the topic clearly meets WP:GNG, even if the article still needs quite some work. Daranios (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should be tagged with ref improve tags rather than being brought to AFD. May be the weaker of the two freestanding character articles, subject still meets GNG.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it's true that I did not perform a sufficient enough search and that their are sufficient reliable sources. I'll close the discussion. 22090912l (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2023 (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.