Talk:Olenna Tyrell

Notability

This topic is with out a doubt notable, user:Hijiri88 claims it's not. The page contains several sources that proves it has notability and the actress has been nominated for couple of Emmys and has won other awards for this said character. - AffeL (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how the topic is notable. WP:GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. [emphasis mine]

Currently, this article contains nothing but in-universe plot-information and a few passing references to the actor's portrayal of the character. That would potentially make the actor meet WP:NACTOR if she didn't already have an article. If you can't add information about real-world inspiration for the character, author's published commentary, themes, etc., then the character should not have a standalone article. Wikipedia does not include standalone articles on characters about whom all we can write is their in-universe character sheets.

The fact that reliable secondary sources have covered the character's in-universe information is irrelevant, because that still isn't enough to build an article out of.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As you can see their are a lot of sources about the characters casting and all of that and more can even be added, also it has a lot of reliable sources in the article already. - AffeL (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

more can even be added Do that then. We'll see if the topic still looks like it doesn't meet GNG after you fix the article up a bit. I'll even do you a solid -- even though technically the maintenance should remain in the article until notability has been demonstrated, I'll agree to leave it out unless you try and fail to fix the notability problem. Currently, the article makes no claim to notability; both the books and the show include dozens of characters, and there's no reason to assume we can write anything about them beyond basic plot information Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Do that then Why are you using this tone with me, just relax. I still think it meets GNG as it is now, but don't worry more will be added. - AffeL (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you stop copy-pasting everything you write between these two talk pages, forcing me to do the same thing in my response. I actually don't think this topic meets GNG, and if we could get NCHAR off the ground we would have a guideline explicitly discouraging articles just like this one. If you cannot expand this article beyond being a bare plot summary with the occasional passing mention of the character's name in the context of the actress being nominated for this or that award, then the article should be merged into List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. The fact is that the actress is still undoubtedly better-known for The Avengers -- the actress's fame might in theory be a rationale for Emma Peel having an independent article, but that article is already much more like a Wikipedia article than a fan-wiki entry so no one is questioning its existence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I copy pasted my response because you did it when you responded to me. - AffeL (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop projecting. You posted the same (largely off-topic) message on two different fora, and I posted the same response to each. Then when I tried to bring this discussion back to whether "Olenna Tyrell" as a topic meets our notability criteria, you completely ignored that portion of my comment.

Put simply, article talk pages aren't the right place to host this discussion. These pages have almost no one watching them, and since I never said "Samwell Tarly is just as non-notable as Khal Drogo", asking me and me alone to defend the notability tag with the weakest rationale (that the article at present does not justify its own existence, even if it might at some future date) on Talk:Samwell Tarly, while leaving the Khal Drogo page as is indefinitely, is not helpful. This topic probably falls nearer to the Khal Drogo end of the spectrum. We should open an RFC at WT:ASOIAF to determine whether the many redirects you expanded into full articles should be changed back into redirects, with the issue of potential exceptions (like Sam, who again I think we actually could build a decent article around; I just don't think you have done so as of yet) dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Please note that I am NOT asking you to open that RFC immediately. We should craft the RFC question together, with input from other interested parties who have already commented (like Vanamonde), and then open the RFC. RFCs are extremely dangerous if they are not worded carefully. Please do not ask me why.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: I am not really an involved party here, though I've reviewed a couple of articles. I was giving AffeL friendly-neighborhood-admin advice. That said: I wouldn't bother opening an RFC to determine notability. You both should try to find sources: and sources cannot be found to both your satisfaction, I'd suggest merging boldly into a list, or sending to AfD. That is where we determine notability. AffeL, please keep in mind that it's not enough for sources to show that a character exists, or to mention their presence in various seasons, etc. To have a character biography, we need substantial analyses of Olenna Tyrell in reliable sources. That is what you need to find. Vanamonde (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: The RFC idea was not specifically for this article. If you look at Category:A Song of Ice and Fire characters, the vast majority of the pages have essentially the same problem of being nothing but plot summary and random pieces of information that more properly belong to the articles on the actors who portray the characters. Those pages with this problem were all created as redirects to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters many years ago, and then in 2015-2016 someone (AffeL, in all but three or four cases) expanded the redirects into a full articles, even though said articles have never been (and probably never will be) much more than a plot summary.

An AFD on this one page might solve the problem for this page, but I think that AFD would only be addressing the question of whether the page should be kept as is or returned to redirect status. I don't actually think the pages themselves should be deleted, and one AFD would not solve the problem with the other two-dozen or so similar pages.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: Yes, it could: you could have a mass AfD. Odds are this will close as "redirect all", which then establishes consensus to keep those pages as only redirects and not full articles. Vanamonde (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I hadn't thought about that. I haven't seen a lot of mass AFDs, but I guess you're right. Thanks for the heads-up! I'll look into it shortly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• @AffeL: Can you stop asking me to demonstrate on Talk:Samwell Tarly that a character I think is independently noteworthy does not meet GNG? At this point, it comes across as you deliberately moving the discussion over there just to undermine me. The vast majority of your fictional character articles look more like this article and Khal Drogo than like Samwell Tarly. I'll probably be opening a mass AFD within the next week once I've figure out exactly which articles I think should definitely be merged and for which ones a good case could be made for merging; some articles, like the Sam one, I think just need work to demonstrate their own notability, which is why I tagged them rather than boldly redirecting them. But until I get around to that, if you want to continue this discussion it should not be taking place at Talk:Samwell Tarly. (I honestly think the best place for me to be directly discussing with you general issues related to your editing would be your user talk page, but I know you will just blank my messages as you did the last two or three times.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion in May 2019 and the result of the nomination was to keep the article. Therefore, I will be restoring the article and removing the notability tag. I will leave the plot tag but it should be kept in mind that weaknesses in the article are reasons to improve the article, not reasons to delete it. Warren Dew (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This article was not AFDed in May 2019 -- it was caught up in a mass nomination where there was broad support for redirecting all the pages in question but little support for outright deleting the pages. The AFD was POINTily closed by an editor who has repeatedly expressed the opinion that AFD is not for redirecting, and therefore would not have closed it that way anyway. However, since this page had been the subject of extensive discussion two years earlier, with consensus among practically everyone but AffeL being that if no one could add non-plot, non-COATRACK content to it that it should be redirected, that previous discussion easily outweighs a mass-AFD with a problematic close, in which no one had actually been talking about this specific article to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears from this discussion that you were the only one who thought it should be a redirect. In the interim, several other editors seem to have seen the article as worth editing. Vanamonds specifically suggested an AfD to resolve the issue. The mass AfD was the only AfD I could find on the article, and in that AfD, redirects were suggested for some articles but this one was pointed out as an exception that should be kept. If there was another one, please point it out. If there wasn't, we should respect the resolution of the AfD and leave the article in place, not as a redirect. Warren Dew (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what Warren Dew have said. I have reverted the redirect. Haleth (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"It is revealed by Littlefinger"

As Sansa said in the show "Only a fool would trust Littlefinger". Now, setting aside what the show writers were apparently by portraying Littefinger's dubious explanation as essentially factual and expecting their viewers to do the same, before stating directly that only a fool would trust him, we still shouldn't be using wording that implies that Littlefinger's explanation is indisputably "true" in the books. "Littlefinger claims" would go too far in the other direction. I'm changing it to "According to Littlefinger". I'm assuming, of course, that our article on him makes it clear how much of a sinister liar Littlefinger is and how dead he wants Tyrion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

primary sources

Sorry if this throws a wrench into the article, but is HBO an acceptable source for citation regarding a character on an HBO series? Would using such a source not weaken the argument for notability? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it's an acceptable source, but you're right, it wouldn't help support notability on its own. The article does have many other citations from other reliable sources though. There's no reason to remove the HBO citations, however, if that's what you;re thinking. They seem to be used to establish basic, non-controversial info like the portrayer in the TV series.— TAnthony^Talk 18:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Book vs. TV series differences.

The differences between show Olenna and book Olenna should be made their own article, section, or at least be mentioned as they are relevant to understanding this character for those who read the novels. Mr.Mictlantecuhtli (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

~~~ Mr.Mictlantecuhtli (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)