Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammy Fabelman

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 merge‎ to The Fabelmans. Owen× ☎ 14:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Fabelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No SIGCOV of character to justify independent article. Almost all references cover themes of the movie rather than specifically being about the character. No notable content that isn't either already included in the movie's article, or can't be included there if deemed notable enough DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage on the character may come in overtime when critical re-evaluation happens in the future. The fact the character is based on the film's own director (who happens to be one of the world's greatest filmmakers) also helps boost the significance. HM2021 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that coverage may come in doesn't change the fact that it hasn't. As it stands now, it's been over two years since the film's release and there's been no sigcov of the character. If critics start widely covering it down the line, remake the article, but until then it's just not notable

As for it being notable as a depiction of Spielberg, any content covering that would be much better placed in a depictions section on Spielberg's article DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Fabelmans Andre🚐 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course. The article is too large and detailed to merge its information adequately, and as a semi-bio of the director its notability and sources meet GNG. Fits well into many other pages for film characters, especially given its unique perspective and use in film story-telling. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the themes to the respective section of the article, axe the Reception entirely. The Reception is wholly just random quotes plucked from reviews, and very little of it is actual SIGCOV. Merge some of the casting info to the article, as a lot of it is already at The Fabelmans article. There's no real character SIGCOV here independent of the film. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per Pokelego999. No WP:SIGCOV independent of the film. The film is a fictional drama about the character's life. There really isn't reception that separates the two. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (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.