Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Doyle (character)

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. Sandstein 08:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Doyle (character)

[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)

Zero real world notability. All sourcing is simple announcements. Was deprodded without rationale (simply citing DEPROD isn't a rationale, since that clearly states "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.") or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's assertion is false as more than one source is about a petition about the actor who should play this part and that's a real-world consideration. Also, there are obvious alternatives to deletion and this is a blatant failure of WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft delete and merge/redirect are ok too). The only source about real world significance I see is [1]. This is effectively WP:ONEEVENT - outside this petition, covered in few sentences, no reliable source has bothered to discuss this character. At best, a sentence about the petition can be merged to the parent article about the franchise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers are not done by deletion – see WP:MAD. The simple and sensible process in such cases is to keep the page so that editors may refer to its history when developing and reusing its content per WP:PRESERVE. Deletion is disruptive because it makes the history inaccessible. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've updated my vote to reflect that I am fine with soft deletion too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One reference is not enough to establish notability. The above keep seeks pointless bureaucracy rather than presenting a valid opinion on the article's merit. TTN (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The character is already covered in a lot of detail at List_of_Halloween_characters#Tommy_Doyle, and there are not enough sources to justify splitting that off into an independent article. The entry at the Thomas Doyle disambiguate page should also be reverted to a link to that list, as it was before the creation of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found some books that could be used to create a better article (although List_of_Halloween_characters#Tommy_Doyle is probably the best place for this content): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'll leave it to others to decide. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 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.