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.
Sources in the article are either primary or do not prove the character's notability, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to Hannibal Lecter (franchise)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster(chat!) 02:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would agree with the current sources being somewhat questionable, but a quick search shows the character has reliable sources available. (There is also Vox, etc.) I see significant coverage, the character appears to be noteworthy. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the FBI source would prove the character's notability, it's an artifact for the film. The Vox source is more about the show and the part that mentions Crawford is pretty much a plot summary. Spinixster(chat!) 07:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should reread the GNG, because there have been many articles written entirely with one source. The only scenario I agree with an article needing to be heavily sourced is BLP. Otherwise, the topic only needs to have proven notability from reliable sources, which this article most certainly has. UNLIKE BLP, every single detail does not have to be proven for it to be a noteworthy/reliable article. From the other PRODs @Siroxo mentions, it appears you have it out for character articles, so I would suggest avoiding them in general. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will note the policy is not specific, and is not discussing fictional character notability, but a very loosely-defined set of rules aimed at the property at large, and having read those specific rulesets essentially redirects to the GNG. I believe the sources are significant coverage enough, and if not already there, they are available to use. Especially for the plot sections, one allowed sneaky trick I would use would be to bring about author quotes from the novel to verify the statements. Thanks for reading, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 11:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So according to your logic, all characters that are mentioned in plot summaries are notable, which as I said, according to SIGCOV, is not true. The sources need to address the topic directly and in detail, and brief mentions are not that. Spinixster(chat!) 11:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the sources for a third time, I still stand with my original statement: the sources on the article do not, as you said, prove notability. If you insist on these issues being fixed, I pledge to bring the article to a noteworthy state. You can keep the deletion tag if you must, but this article does not need WP:TNT atm. Respectfully, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 12:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is always an option until notability is proven with sources. Spinixster(chat!) 13:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back to you if I am able to rewrite the article. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 15:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources have been shown to NEXIST. There's plenty more if you search "Jack Crawford" hannibal in proquest and limit to scholarly journals or whatever you prefer, eg [1]. While I don't doubt the nominator is acting in good faith, I also see 8 nominations with similar reasoning in a 7-minute time span. I am concerned about this, especially considering other recent nominations like 1, 3, 2, 4, and likely others that I didn't see or am forgetting. —siroχo 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the source only briefly mentions the character and there's not much analysis for the character going on. Other sources can be considered. Spinixster(chat!) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Jack Crawford is notable, the character has been analyzed. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article has no reception/analysis. I've reviewed the two sources above. Vox seems mostly a plot summary. FBI makes a claim of significance but otherwise fails SIGCOV. If this is the best we can find, I fear this is not enough. Ping me if more sources are found so I can revise my vote if needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Perhaps it is the new vs old Google Books interface, but I am getting just snippet views from your link. What I see in the first source is just a plot summary. Two is similar, also page 29 might have something useful? Third, again, plot summary. If you want me to look into this more, please provide specific page numbers that contain analysis, preferably with links directly to them that provide full view, or quote such material here. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The full views I have of some of these books doesn't include page numbers so here's some quotes:
Here's a couple examples from Tasker
Chapter 3
In both Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs ,Harris has recourse to a rather different version of the FBI, one centred on the Behavioral Science Unit and the figure of the profiler. Harris’s sources for Crawford, Robert Ressler and John Douglas (the latter would act as a consultant on the film), have both published accounts of their work. Thus, as Seltzer notes, the image of the profiler has a popular currency in true crime literature as much as crime fiction. ... As a cinematic and literary phenomenon the profiler is a great success (setting aside the ‘real’ world for now). Though not a profiler as such, Seven’s Detective Somerset (Morgan Freeman) also exemplifies the type. ... As a cinematic and literary phenomenon the profiler is a great success (setting aside the ‘real’ world for now). Though not a profiler as such, Seven’s Detective Somerset (Morgan Freeman) also exemplifies the type.
Chapter 5:
Clarice’s relationship with Lecter and Crawford has been widely read as paternalistic – they are seen as representing bad and good fathers respectively. For Martha Gever, Starling’s ‘heroic trajectory is plotted by a pantheon of fathers’.71 It is true that Hollywood, when it has time for adventurous young women at all, tends to emphasise their relationship to their fathers: think of Jodie Foster as Ellie in Contact (US, Robert Zemeckis, 1997) ... or Helen Hunt as Jo in Twister (US, Jan de Bont, 1996).... Yet, although Lecter and Crawford are both figures of authority, there is no reason to assume that they are father figures.
Here's some from Forshaw
Certain elements in the original novel pertaining to the Jack Crawford character are wisely removed in the film adaptation, such as his anguished visits to the bedside of his dying wife. Although in the source material this is an important element, in the context of the filleting that is necessary when creating a screenplay from a novel, such peripheral elements not only become inessential, but their removal can forge a certain opaqueness which is actually helpful to a particular film (as when Clint Eastwood persuaded Sergio Leone to abandon acres of dialogue when the two worked together in Italy on the ‘spaghetti Westerns’). Here, the streamlining obliges us to regard Crawford (to some degree) from the outside – in precisely the way, in fact, that Starling perceives him. We know no more about him than she does, and this mystique makes the character, and his motives regarding Starling, more intriguing.
Again, Crawford gently tests Starling’s ability to analyse what she knows of the killer they are both pursuing – a reminder that the whole narrative might be seen as something of an educational primer detailing the development/upskilling of Clarice Starling.
At this point, we once again we find ourselves surprised by the legerdemain that Demme extrapolates so successfully from the Harris novel. Lecter abruptly changes the conversation to a discussion of Jack Crawford and his interest in Clarice Starling. If audiences really examined Lecter’s insights (of which this is a classic example), they might be bemused by (or sceptical of) the fact that this incarcerated prisoner can have access to so much privileged information. But the conjuring trick played by director and screenwriter in such instances is to maintain the level of focused intensity that simply steers us away from such inconvenient questions. Lecter attempts to embarrass Starling again with sexually explicit questions: ‘Do think Jack Crawford wants you, sexually? True, he is much older, but do you think he visualises scenarios, exchanges, fucking you?’
Hmmm, thanks. If this is the best we can do, I think we are still in the borderline territory. That said, feel free to treat my current vote with the qualifier weak. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have looked at a some reviews of the media cited in the articles, for example this review of the Hannibal TV series, which discusses Crawford (and notes that "a sudden detour into Crawford's marriage is mostly dull and takes us away from far more fruitful storylines" — a negative reception is still a reception). BD2412T 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: What makes it unreliable? For a TV series review from a reviewer (Paul Doro) well-established enough in their field to have reviews published in other publications (e.g., here). Really you should ask User:SchrutedIt08, who added the source to Hannibal (TV series)over ten years ago, where it has since gone unremarked upon. BD2412T 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources provided by the editors above show notability. I really think this mass deletion is really disfavour to editors – it makes improving the articles much harder as they have to improve 7+ in a few days (and then explain their improvements). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:01, 12 October 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.