Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Parata

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. ✗plicit 23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Parata

[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)

Tagged it for notability, hoping that it might be improved, but the tag was removed without improvement. The refs in the development section are either primary, or short blurbs, with no in-depth coverage of the character development. In the reception section there 8 new refs. The first is a brief mention of the character, and is about why the actor left the show. The second is an awards show announcement - now I can't access it, but awards shows are about the actor, not the character. The third is a one-line mention. Likewise, the fourth is also a single line mention. The fifth, actually mentions him several times, but it is a plot synopsis. The same for numbers six and seven. Number eight, again talks about the character, but again is plot synopsis. There are 4 other refs in the section, which were used earlier in the article, but none of them are in-depth about the character. On the whole, there is not a single in-depth source about the real-world notability of the character, all of it is in-universe. As per WP:NOTPLOT, this does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Qwv (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article definitely meets notability. If this is simply an issue with references, they can be improved, as can in-universe information. I must admit when I saw your tag it looked like it had been tagged without the article or the subject being read or understood. In my opinion, this shouldn't have automatically nominated for deletion because the tag was removed. This is something that can be resolved by discussion on a talk page 5 albert square (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the whole, there is not a single in-depth source about the real-world notability of the character, all of it is in-universe. – That's not even remotely true. I think it also shows that you haven't been through all of the refs (or showed good faith for those offline). What about the interviews with the actor discussing his character? The news sources talking about how he's part of the first Maori family on the show? I believe there are enough sources covering real-world info pertaining to the character to pass WP:GNG. I wouldn't have had the article moved to the mainspace if I didn't think it was okay. Yeah, there probably are some in-universe bits, but nothing that can't be rewritten. Deletion is a bit much, no? If you want an apology for removing the tag, then I'm sorry. I genuinely thought it was a drive-by tagging from someone who quickly glanced at the article. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:June found 57 CREDIBLE Sources off her *own* back and the article "fails to meet notability"? Call BS on this. Smacks of someone throwing their weight around. Conquistador2k6 (Yo, Talk to me) 21:34 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep - This article clearly passes WP:GNG. Home and Away is a television series broadcast in multiple countries and this subject is about a prominent character in the series. There are numerous sources cited in the article and my assessment is some of the more trivial ones have been highlighted above. But they are needed since they support information in the article. The character development is clearly explained throughout using the sources. Those sources in those sections that you could scrutinise are used to support the claims in character development. This character is part of the first Maori family on the show. Notable that the article documents the need for authenticity and the show's efforts to reflect Maori culture via the character to an Australian audience. In the reception the award info is cited to a magazine source. Accessing the source on Readly, this is directly to do with the character since the nomination is for his role in Home and Away. Perhaps the sources do not include endless paragraphs of character analysis - they still have writer's opinions included in them, so I fail to see why they should be discounted here. As mentioned above, this nomination was created after a notability tag was removed. It does come off as using AFD as a weapon in retaliation.Rain the 1 21:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination, AfD is not the place to request article improvement and deletion is nothing like improvement. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 23:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – this article has 50+ sources that JuneGloom07 has worked tirelessly on including and a deletion is not appropriate at all. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above discussion. The sources provided by JuneGloom07 show that this subject has received significant attention from third-party, reliable sources so it passes the WP:GNG standards. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reception section alone demonstrates notability. – Meena • 09:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has sufficient sources to prove notability. ––– GMH Melbourne TALK 11:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is demonstrably notable. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 14:11, 3 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.