Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John "JD" Durairaj

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "JD" Durairaj

[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)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) like Jessie and Meghna. Sources are all film reviews which simply mentions multiple characters from the film. Only the first source isn't. Merge all information to Master (2021 film)#Themes and influences if deemed necessary. DareshMohan (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One time character. Hasn't appeared in any sequel, spinoff or remake. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. The information is extremely unnecessary for a single page, and since Vijay doesn't have information on his own page, I say that we can merge it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Martial arts, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The statement overlooks the potential significance and impact of JD's presence in a standalone narrative and fails to consider its cultural or narrative contribution, as seen with iconic one-time characters like Hannibal Lecter from "The Silence of the Lambs" or Tyler Durden from "Fight Club." ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: The !voter above is the same person as the blocked socks below. --Blablubbs (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Lecter and Tyler Durden are by no means one-time characters. And don't compare JD to them. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears that the concept of a "one-time character" is somewhat ambiguous, especially considering that many such characters have their own wiki pages. Deleting JD's wiki page might not align with consistency given the existence of other one-time character pages. Additionally, if JD's page isn't violating any rules and there are other contributors invested in its development, it suggests a level of community interest and relevance. Comparing JD to other one-time characters like Tyler Durden and Hannibal Lecter, who haven't appeared in sequels, spinoffs, or remakes of fims, underscores the notion that JD merits inclusion and recognition within the wiki. NativeTamilan (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Master (2021 film) - There are no sources that would indicate that the character is notable outside of simply being the star of a notable movie that has its own article already, nor has any real analysis or discussion separate from the reviews and discussions of the movie as a whole. I don't think merging is really necessary here as the vast majority of this article is simply a summary of the movie's plot, which the main article on the film already has, and the one section for analysis of the character is completely unsourced. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock arguments and !votes --Blablubbs (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why would that even matter for a character wiki he is not a real life historical figure like Mohammad or Jesus where you need sources if you look at that angle half of the movie characters have no impact other then Instagram and Tik Tok edits. ManOfJusticekk (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's policy on original research and the general notability guideline to understand why sources do, in fact, matter even for a fictional character. And you are absolutely correct with your second point - most fictional characters that appeared in a single movie and have no significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrating any kind of independent notability shouldn't have an article, such as this one. Rorshacma (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It is imperative to recognize the significance of fictional characters within the context of their respective art form and assess their notability accordingly. In the case of the character JD from "Master," his inclusion is warranted as he is an integral part of the movie's thematic elements and narrative arc. Dismissing JD's importance as a one-time character would be a hasty judgment, overlooking the depth of his impact on the storyline and the dynamics among other characters. It is essential to enhance JD's representation by integrating relevant information into the broader discussion of themes and influences within the film's main page. Deleting JD from the discussion would deprive readers of potential insights into the film's themes and character development, which could significantly enrich their understanding. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain the integrity of the character while addressing concerns about page redundancy and notability. DonParlo (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Brother, when we delve into the matter at hand, we must ponder deeply upon the essence of significance and relevance. Now, if we were to reflect on the character in question, we must acknowledge that its prominence primarily stems from its portrayal in a notable cinematic masterpiece, correct? However, my dear friend, does this portrayal in and of itself grant inherent notability outside the realm of the film? One must wonder, for without independent analysis or discourse separate from the broader discussions of the movie, can we truly assert its individual significance? Now, merging, my brother, merging is not merely a matter of necessity but a strategic maneuver to consolidate redundant information. The bulk of this article merely reiterates the plot already expounded upon in the main article on the film, leaving us with a solitary section bereft of substantiated analysis. Verily, my dear brother, it is imperative that we uphold scholarly standards and substantiate our claims with credible sources lest we dilute the discourse with unsubstantiated assertions. SwamyAyya566 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It doesn't seem to hurt anything and it doesn't seem like it breaks any of the wiki laws that I have read. But I guess that's just my opinion. But hey I feel like we should get editors to edit this page instead start up deleting it or put it in a subsection in the Master (2021 film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by சரோகம (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination and heavy involvements of SOCKS --~AntanO4task (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One presumes that if there were good arguments or sourcing, socks would be unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2024 (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.