Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Creed

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Creed

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

I propose either a deletion or merger of the Apollo Creed article, given that the page is about a secondary character, which has been tagged as possibly not notable since August 2010, and has numerous problems, including but not limited to trivia, lack of references, and original research. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources around to have a decently-referenced article here, and this is a major character from a very notable film series.--Michig (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is by no means a minor character but clearly a major and significant character in a series of very successful films. The nominator should instead add references, and edit out the trivia and original research, instead of trying to delete the article. Thats what WP:BEFORE calls for. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I look at the results of the Template:Find, there are sources and good ones. The article can be improved.--Crazy runner (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that there is no List of Rocky characters, and the two supporting character stand-alone articles (Apollo Creed and Mickey Goldmill) have major problems. As I noted in my proposal, merger is acceptable as well. Also, we must ask what makes Apollo Creed more notable than Buster Baxter, for example. Apollo was a supporting character in 4 movies, with mainly trivial popular culture references listed. Buster Baxter, besides being one of the main supporting characters in a long running TV show and book series, also hosted his own show. Now I am not saying Buster Baxter should have his own article again, but we must make sure that general notability is applied evenly and not only for fan favourites. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major character in one of the most important series in the history of film. The Rocky series has whole books written about it, not to mention a ridiculous amount of reviews and cultural criticism, so verifiability os not in question. I agree with you about Buster Baxter, but that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As soon as I saw the name of the article I knew who it was. There's only one Apollo Creed. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 03:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is notable enough for an WP article--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing in the article is currently poor but treatment in critical literature like this and this show that sources exist to establish notability and provide for improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major and well-covered recurring character in multiple notable films, and one who has actually achieved a real-world notability. While acknowledging that yes, the article will benefit from cleanup and sourcing, that fact that an incredible amount of sources are available[1][2][3] to do just that would seem more a reason to fix it rather than delete it because it has not yet been done. And in an interesting sidebar: If this were an article on an actual person, the plethora of available sources would indicate that notability was not the least in doubt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 31 January 2011 (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.