- 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 redirect to It (novel). This is a closing of all three characters' articles at the same time. The way the articles are now, there is a plot synopsis (already covered in the novel), adaptations (movies articles) and appearances in other media, which can be covered in some short sentences somewhere. Those points have been outlined in the discussion. If there are more sources with analysis or so, then maybe return separate articles but not in the present state. Tone 12:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ben Hanscom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Again, deprodded without rattionale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to It (novel) - The three "It" characters currently at AFD could have probably been bundled together as a single nomination, as they all have the same issues. That said, my response will be the same for all three. None of the character's demonstrate any independent notability. The sources available are either reporting on things such as casting announcements, or are purely plot summaries. The main article on the novel has a fully plot summary, including their full roles in it, as well as the information on their casting in both adaptations. As plausible search terms, they should redirect there. Rorshacma ( talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Zero real world notability." Explain what adding "real world" means to the notability of this topic. 72.43.200.112 ( talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all these articles or at least Draftify These are main characters in a hugely popular and acclaimed novel which has been adapted several times. A simple google search gives tons of coverage in both books and reputable sites. The failiour here is not in notability but in effort put into the articles. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rorshacma. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Move to draft.Updated to keep below
Again... 7 days after creation something is being nominated for deletion? Again... Talk page is totally blank with no constructive feedback for article improvement. No time given to even potentially complete the article. Why is the answer to delete instead of help these people out? Unless what was done WP:BEFORE proves zero notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there is no information provided to help me know whether that is true or not. - 2pou ( talk) 18:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I searched for sources to save this and found nothing but plot synopsis, film and book reviews with tangential coverage. There really wasn't any significant coverage to warrant a seperate article on Ben Hanscom. Redirect is the best solution. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rorshacma and 4meter4. Daask ( talk) 20:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Americana has published a good journal article that can be attributed to the It characters:
[1]. It's Plot in Part I/Part II, but the intro/conclusion are analysis.
Stronger subjects of analysis and what they represent are Eddie, Bill, Mike (no wiki article, though), and Audra (no wiki article again); while discussion is weaker for Richie, Ben, and Beverly, but all do come together as representations of Baby Boomers.
Putting it out for consideration as a source to establish notability.
These have potential, but I don't have access [2] [3]. - 2pou ( talk) 23:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that these sources may be substantial, but without getting access to them it's impossible to say for certain. I do agree that the first journal article provides some unique analysis of the character outside of the traditional text. Unfortunately, unless we can actually see all the journals (or if another editor with access can vouch that the material is substantial by WP:AGF), then the decision to redirect is really the best one. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Again a failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. Secondary "real-world" sources discussing the character in detail were found following a simple search, these include [4] (pages 132-133) [5] (pages 140-143) and [6] (page 33).-- Pontificalibus 12:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at Special:diff/919590895
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at Special:diff/919590895
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep There's enough context in The Dark Descent link to show Ben is significantly covered, making multiple sources found to exist here. The article should be improved not deleted. WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article. Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. - 2pou ( talk) 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect - The topic doesn't seem to have the potential to hold its own. The above sources seem to be trivial mentions, so they can't actual add substance to the article. TTN ( talk) 10:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. I am not seeing anything beyond some mentions in passing. If a fictional character is mentioned in few sentences in few books this is still not sufficient for a stand alone page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to It (novel). This is a closing of all three characters' articles at the same time. The way the articles are now, there is a plot synopsis (already covered in the novel), adaptations (movies articles) and appearances in other media, which can be covered in some short sentences somewhere. Those points have been outlined in the discussion. If there are more sources with analysis or so, then maybe return separate articles but not in the present state. Tone 12:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ben Hanscom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Again, deprodded without rattionale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to It (novel) - The three "It" characters currently at AFD could have probably been bundled together as a single nomination, as they all have the same issues. That said, my response will be the same for all three. None of the character's demonstrate any independent notability. The sources available are either reporting on things such as casting announcements, or are purely plot summaries. The main article on the novel has a fully plot summary, including their full roles in it, as well as the information on their casting in both adaptations. As plausible search terms, they should redirect there. Rorshacma ( talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Zero real world notability." Explain what adding "real world" means to the notability of this topic. 72.43.200.112 ( talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all these articles or at least Draftify These are main characters in a hugely popular and acclaimed novel which has been adapted several times. A simple google search gives tons of coverage in both books and reputable sites. The failiour here is not in notability but in effort put into the articles. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rorshacma. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Move to draft.Updated to keep below
Again... 7 days after creation something is being nominated for deletion? Again... Talk page is totally blank with no constructive feedback for article improvement. No time given to even potentially complete the article. Why is the answer to delete instead of help these people out? Unless what was done WP:BEFORE proves zero notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there is no information provided to help me know whether that is true or not. - 2pou ( talk) 18:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I searched for sources to save this and found nothing but plot synopsis, film and book reviews with tangential coverage. There really wasn't any significant coverage to warrant a seperate article on Ben Hanscom. Redirect is the best solution. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rorshacma and 4meter4. Daask ( talk) 20:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Americana has published a good journal article that can be attributed to the It characters:
[1]. It's Plot in Part I/Part II, but the intro/conclusion are analysis.
Stronger subjects of analysis and what they represent are Eddie, Bill, Mike (no wiki article, though), and Audra (no wiki article again); while discussion is weaker for Richie, Ben, and Beverly, but all do come together as representations of Baby Boomers.
Putting it out for consideration as a source to establish notability.
These have potential, but I don't have access [2] [3]. - 2pou ( talk) 23:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that these sources may be substantial, but without getting access to them it's impossible to say for certain. I do agree that the first journal article provides some unique analysis of the character outside of the traditional text. Unfortunately, unless we can actually see all the journals (or if another editor with access can vouch that the material is substantial by WP:AGF), then the decision to redirect is really the best one. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Again a failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. Secondary "real-world" sources discussing the character in detail were found following a simple search, these include [4] (pages 132-133) [5] (pages 140-143) and [6] (page 33).-- Pontificalibus 12:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at Special:diff/919590895
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at Special:diff/919590895
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep There's enough context in The Dark Descent link to show Ben is significantly covered, making multiple sources found to exist here. The article should be improved not deleted. WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article. Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. - 2pou ( talk) 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect - The topic doesn't seem to have the potential to hold its own. The above sources seem to be trivial mentions, so they can't actual add substance to the article. TTN ( talk) 10:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. I am not seeing anything beyond some mentions in passing. If a fictional character is mentioned in few sentences in few books this is still not sufficient for a stand alone page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- 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.