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) reply

Bill Denbrough (  | 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 rationale or improvement. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• "Zero real world notability." What do you mean "real world"? Cause there are citations in this article. 72.43.200.112 ( talk) 18:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails to establish real world notability. TTN ( talk) 15:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Rorshacma. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

*Move to Draft.Updated below
This article was in existence for 7 days before being proposed for deletion? What? The Talk page is totally empty... The nomination is so vague and doesn't give me any idea of what was done WP:BEFORE nomination. The burden of proof should not be falling on the creators here, but the nominators. How do you even know that people are done working on it or looking for sources? - 2pou ( talk) 18:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• 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 Bill Denbrough. Redirect is the best solution. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per Rorshacma and 4meter4. Daask ( talk) 20:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• 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) 23:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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) 01:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep It seems everyone above arguing for deletion has failed WP:BEFORE. Numerous sources discussing directly in detail. In "Kyle Christensen & Scarlett L. Hester (2019): The horrors of white male innocence in IT (2017), Critical Studies in Media Communication, DOI:10.1080/15295036.2019.1662071" the authors devote several paragraphs totalling around 1000 words discussing the character in detail. Other sources for example discuss the Bill Denbrough character as an author stand-in e.g ( [4], [5], and [6]), and this is also discussed in numerous contemporary newspaper reviews of It (novel). Plenty of other sources found by using Google Scholar or similar resources.---- Pontificalibus 11:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Updating to Keep per above new findings. Thanks @ Pontificalibus: Concur with WP:NEXIST arguments. The sources need to exist, not necessarily be present in the article. Incorporating them into the article can help, but that just goes to show that the article needs improvement not deletion. - 2pou ( talk) 15:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:BEFORE reveals sources WP:NEXIST. Pontificalibus found a few. WP:ATD Wm335td ( talk) 17:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to It (novel). No indications of any non-passing, non-trivial coverage beyond WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES sentiment. I have reviewed the scholarly work [7], but the character does not to be discussed outside few sentences in passing; ditto for the books (through I could only access 1 out of 3, the others report as copyright blanks to me). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 18 October 2019 (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.