Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist (2nd nomination)

Eddie Quist

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

No significant coverage in third-party sources to WP:verify notability. The sources barely link the character to the actor and describe a few plot details. According to the general notability guideline, sources need to provide significant coverage, "address the subject directly in detail" and provide "more than a trivial mention". The coverage falls drastically short of that standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books shows plenty of non-trivial mentions. Per WP:BEFORE, I'd like the nom to explain how none of those books amount to significant coverage of the character. I note that there seems to be a very low false positive rate for that name, so searching shouldn't be hard. Bottom line: Meets N, meets V, article could clearly be improved rather than deleted. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (I ask the follwing while having not seen the movie myself) Why does Eddie get his own article? Is it because he was the main antagonist? A quick glace over the cast list showed that no one else in the movie seems to have their own article, yet he deserves one? Just curious how that worked out. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 08:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]