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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Joyce-stick ( talk) 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Dilbert (character)

Dilbert (character) (  | 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)

Similar pages covering supporting characters from this comic strip were nominated for deletion (by myself) due to WP:GNG and WP:FANCRUFT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wally (Dilbert), and a consensus to redirect to List of Dilbert characters was reached. There is no significant standalone coverage of this character, the page shares the same flaws as the previous nominated pages, and the previous consensus sets a precedent for redirecting. The only non-primary source is an interview with the creator, apparently mislabeled as being from The New York Times as it in fact appears self-published, which hardly qualifies. Thusly I am now nominating it for the same reasons, with a proposal to also redirect it to the list as was done previously. Joyce-stick ( talk) 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Joyce-stick ( talk) 02:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Joyce-stick ( talk) 02:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I found WP:THREE articles on Newspapers.Com like this one [1] https://www.newspapers.com/image/136046878/ and added them to the article. In this one, the writer distinguishes between the character Dilbert and the comic strip Dilbert and there appears to me to be WP:SIGCOV of him. Hard to believe that a character who was on the cover of 5 national magazines in a week (Fortune, Newsweek, etc.) in the 1990s and had his own Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavor would be up for deletion on Wikipedia. Watch your back, Snoopy! BBQboffin ( talk) 04:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  Comment. I'm not sure you understand what significant coverage entails in the context of WP:FICTION. The sourced information (essentially, Dilbert was merchandised, promoted in magazines, and had a voice actor play him once) lacks substance- it is WP:TRIVIA. All it proves is that there was at one time a marketing push to improve the comic strip's popularity, and that does not prove Dilbert the character is a notable subject independent of the strip. I can't verify if the sources make any significant commentary on the character or not, as they're all paywalled, but if there is any significant critical commentary about the character within those sources, it should be added appropriately. Edit: I see the new information has been fleshed out further. That's a very interesting piece of trivia about Scott Adams' answering machine, but it's still trivia and seems more like commentary on the creator than the character. If we had more sources like that quote discussing the character's appeal, it could be a case for notability, but my opinion is overall unchanged for the moment. If the consensus is to delete the page, I'd say those sources are probably worth merging into the list of characters and/or the pages covering Adams and the comic strip when redirecting. Joyce-stick ( talk) 04:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I can't believe this AfD is even being discussed. First off, I have no problem with the secondary characters in this comic being grouped into one article, and I'm also not a fan of the political inanity Scott Adams had facepalmed into in recent years. However, it's not correct to say the deletion of Wally's article "sets a precedent for redirecting." Each article's notability is determined on it's on.

From the 1990s through the early 2000s Dilbert was one of the leading comic strips in the world and the character of Dilbert was everywhere. If we say this character isn't notable, I don't know how we can justify keeping any articles about comic characters including Garfield, Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and so on. As for references to support the notability of this character, here are a few that specifically focus on the character, not the overall comic. Note that many of the unlinked articles can be found and read through the Wikipedia Library.

• In 1997, Time Magazine named the character of Dilbert one of the " 25 Most Influential Americans." and Dilbert was also featured on that issue's cover. Hard to argue that a comic book character isn't notable when he's named among the most influential people in a year. (Citation: "TIME's 25 Most Influential Americans, Apr. 21, 1997."
• The character of Dilbert was on the cover of Newsweek’s August 12, 1996 issue, with the associated article described the character as the strip's "eponymous hero" and explored why people were drawn to this character. (Citation: " Working in Dilbert's World" by Steven Levy, Newsweek, August 12, 1996, pages 52-57.
• " Social" by Ben Zimmer, the NY Times, April 3, 2010, where the character of Dilbert is called the "the Everyman of cubicle culture."
• " Seven Days a Geek" from the Democrat and Chronicle, Dec. 29, 1995, which was shared above, is absolutely proof of notability for its analysis of the character. This is a major article in a reputable newspaper. We do not dismiss reliable news sources by saying "All it proves is that there was at one time a marketing push to improve the comic strip's popularity" b/c you could say the same about a lot of media coverage.
• "Both Everyman and Other: 'Dilbert' as an Exemplar of Newspaper Comics' Simultaneous Identification and Distance" by Julie A. Davis, International Journal of Comic Art 11 no2 176-94 Fall 2009, which describes the character of Dilbert as a "stereotypical computer nerd."
• " When Dilbert speaks on ethics, Lockheed Martin listens; defense contractor employs the comics-page character to train employees to handle tough questions of conduct" by Steven Ginsberg, The Washington Post, 1997.
• "Why We Love Dilbert" by Bob Lee, Issues & Observations. 1996, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p7.
• "DILBERT: Office geek, cyber nerd and now info hunk," Globe & Mail, July 6, 1996, which states of the character that "Some fans have suggested that Dilbert is a digital-class warrior, rallying the white collar workers of the world."
• "THE ILLUSTRATED GEEK" by Stuart Turton, PC Pro, Jan 2013, Issue 219, which says "It's a far cry from the early days of the web, when geek comics were dominated by the weekly belittling of Dilbert - the office automaton being ordered around by a clueless manager in a shirt and tie. Dilbert resonated with every IT worker whose boss had more desk than brain."
• The Geek Gap Why Business And Technology Professionals Don't Understand Each Other And Why They Need Each Other to Survive by Bill Pfleging, Prometheus 2009 page 109. where Mr. Spock and Dilbert are described as a "pop culture icons."
• Information, Technology, and Innovation Resources for Growth in a Connected World by John M. Jordan, 2012, Whiley, page 148, where the character of Dilbert is called "cubicle America's cultural icon."

I could go on with the citations referencing the notability of this character (including a number of citations about the character of Dilbert being licensed). Again, back in the 1990s and early 2000s the character of Dilbert was everywhere. It's one thing to not have articles on minor or secondary characters in a notable comic strip like this. It's quite another to suggest that a comic strip character described as a "cultural icon" not have an article.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 13:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per above. I find that these kinds of fictional character AFDs become all about different peoples interpretation of GNG and Significant Coverage. Those with very high standards will look at the above and say all those mentions are trivial, or they lack "analysis" or that it can't be significant coverage unless its multiple paragraphs about the character. Personally I think the above is plenty to show the character Dilbert has real world notability and so there is no reason to delete the page. Rhino131 ( talk) 13:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  Comment. I believe that these many sources have sufficiently changed my opinion that the character of Dilbert is distinctly notable as opposed to the previously redirected non-notable supporting cast that were discussed in the previous nomination. As such, I am electing to Withdraw this nomination and will accordingly close the discussion shortly. Thank you all for your comments. Joyce-stick ( talk) 13:41, 19 July 2022 (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.