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. Keeping this and I'll let ya'll hash out the details about merging and redirects on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stryver[edit]

Stryver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Despite the notability of the main work of fiction, this is a minor character with very little coverage in third party sources, and does not meet the WP:GNG. As is, there is nothing to say here other than a cast list and a plot summary, which is something that Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. Jontesta (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to A Tale of Two Cities. This seems like an improper AfD since a bold redirect is an obvious WP:ATD here. It would never be outright deleted due to its usefulness as a redirect to the source material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: Check some sources below/added to the article, I think this has potential.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I restored a vandalized section on his development (more can be added from [1] but I feel tired and ProQuest articles require manual citation...) and started a reception section. Something more can be taken from [2]. This article contains a phrase "Dickens analyses the imprisonment of Stryver, the British legal system, and above all the..." and may or may not be relevant, but again, ProQuest sucks and the pdf is not searchable and don't have the time nor will to read the 17 pages here. More here: [3]: "Petch’s analysis of the professional relationship between Stryver and Carton can be read in terms of queer sexuality.", and the cited work is here, through frankly despite 24 hits for the subject's name most of it is plot summary, with the only analysis I see here: "Carton and Stryver are contrasted as lawyers, and as suitors." Next. The partial preview I get for [4] gives "relationship of Stryver and Carton as early as". In my experience, such classic literature tends to be heavily studied, and I think a more in-depth search should reveal more, but what I see suggests this character likely is notable. (And given that we sometimes keep comic book characters with coverage that is worse both in terms of analysis and reliability of sources...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are several pages on Stryver in The Lawyers of Dickens and Their Clerks by Robert D. Neely (Lawbook Exchange, 2001), pages 18-23. Not sure how much help it offers, but posting it here for others to look at. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as there is insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. I do see some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS which aren't enough to meet the WP:GNG, but still enough to potentially be preserved if someone really thinks it adds value and feels like doing a very selective merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shooterwalker: Did you look at the sources I foundnd above? I don't think this is all 'trivial coverage'. Were you able to access the sources I couldn't (snippet views etc.)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Google results are fairly split between the Dickens character and the character from The Dark Knight Rises. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – a character in a significant literary work. This should be expanded using the sources found by Piotrus. – bradv🍁 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was a discussion already for this, the result was Keep and this nomination presents no new argument or evidence. WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"disruptively renominate" usually means mutliple rapid nominations, such as occcurred when I joined in 2006/7, where nominations every month or two were not uncommon, until the article was eventualy deleted on the 7th nomination. Consensus can change. The previous discussion was in 2009, 11 years ago.[5] Consensus ofn fictional characters certainly can have changed since then. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ping User:DGG who is the only non-blocked participant of that old AfD who made any significant comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - or redirect. There is some content here to WP:PRESERVE and the topic can be expanded at the main article. Agree that notability isn't quite there at this point but there is an obvious place to include this. Archrogue (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to A_Tale_of_Two_Cities#Characters, which already describes the character and his plot details. A minor character appearing in a single work should not have a separate, duplicative article. Reywas92^Talk 01:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

r 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep my opinion has changed a little since then. In 2009, at the first AfD [6], I said all named characters of major novels by famous authors. I would now say, all significant named characters of major novels by famous authors. Checking the book again, he's not actually a major minor character. In the earlier AfD my colleague, the now blocked :A nobody , referred to an attempted redirect of Natasha Rostova-- one the 3 central characters of ''War and Peace'', generally considered the greatest novel ever written--though much too long to be studied in US schools. Tale of Two Cities, a relatively straightforward and widely taught Dickens novel is of course much more familiar to the readers of the enWP,, but this is a immensely less important character in all respects. He's not trivial--as I said at the last AfD, Dickens is famous for his minor characters, all of whom are meaningful and not just background. But looking at what I said in the previous AfD here, I do not see the article has added the material I had hoped for at the time, and I am not right now in a position to check whether more exists. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I try not to wade into the comment section, because I find articles are either rescued by editing and consensus, or they aren't. But reading through the older AFD, I'm struck by how many blocked users asserted WP:POTENTIAL without any real proof (let alone actual improvements), and that only becomes less credible with time.
  • The improvements during last AFD in 2009. The WP:PLOT and WP:CASTLIST is WP:IINFO. We need more for an encyclopedic article.
  • 12 years of edit history. No sourced material. Zero.
  • The improvements during the current AFD. To Piotrus's credit, he's the first to find a 6 word quote from a secondary source.
• I read this as a passing mention about a stock character that verges on plot summary. And I did look at the gender studies essay about Sydney Carton, where Styver is similarly name-dropped while summarizing the book itself. For me, this just isn't the quantity (one sentence) or quality (plot summary with very little explanation of notability) that I'd expect in even the weakest Start-class articles on Wikipedia. I hope I'm not repeating myself and this certainly isn't an invitation for people to repeat that they still think this article can be improved, because we already know where we disagree. I suppose this comment is here for any editors who are trying to understand this disagreement after the fact. Jontesta (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2020 (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.